From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDB6C04A68 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 21:10:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237007AbiG0VKk (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 17:10:40 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36064 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237050AbiG0VKZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 17:10:25 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1035.google.com (mail-pj1-x1035.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C495F4E628 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id h21-20020a17090aa89500b001f31a61b91dso594337pjq.4 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:07:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=053BAybkkGVP2XqZV691jOeIMeJB36zO3WFHTK5UVWk=; b=DdZGH9rWQMcsHKERvjoQllE0R0SxqL8D1pQYg8oh6bzyf3zngz4QNNalQkIbwiYJJs 9PfCJpH3o98PrnGFB20Ko51nPP1LGKui2NsSjgZ0bQhGqvMUyCOgcXeSBTf5sbOicz9c OnAjHtYvgC5lHnIPiQ4C6Bk5IRgtwOfZ6dAO1mZQS7CXfhg9dG8Fd3M03mgvlyEn0EWW kpzK2Utu5d58cHa1c8YTk0yp2uAE9aYI9dKfniBg5qD96re1h4R3Gu5FXnWbpjweEvpv 2acsUKAxGg4ztgDtoVpCSoK88mS79d0RKmgTy2AsTn2WPOS1ub+FlKb+HcxsoanW3ZQ1 iU1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=053BAybkkGVP2XqZV691jOeIMeJB36zO3WFHTK5UVWk=; b=cBUpZVufVlxsZTNyU8+tdJrMQUzdiV+6OHc2x8w08NkSOMIz0ZyQVNwVXttvQUeAwP R7bLo5gUTgGJU3XOmatYNDJ3N5L4LcamUGtEfVNUcLorheaOUhIlUKUzwgQoVw3aq89y 6QW8c/B4LKGL7tnGHo6Pd/Q/d/MeehV3TqKnG5TdGRfXo34p8g7uN2rVLmMsqk9263Ih A1RlSAZw9Pd6dFK3yv8IMtv2ZObShPtA3WVmSEwIPQvWeLxV8I55GGkEQw7U6EWkBkKn Shxek2L2S+G8/4cKBg6RVeFpvyKd0wrxliN+TjKzThYZoo5VXCCmGcxh1g3/PraWJKmf 2AhA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+QNx0Z6ldZP5JhIYqMkOt9h6Ja6n7O0djwOYotENtlTMAkcD7m bOuZlJ8mbVBqOzwrZOXOhS9vfLsA8GQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1stThVclVq1dDtGs0hQih+mYbTg4f44JpHETMq3lLFbh4ZUVx6n+2t2psB8rmVOScr4MoO98Q== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:eb88:b0:16d:9b10:1407 with SMTP id q8-20020a170902eb8800b0016d9b101407mr10202202plg.56.1658956073074; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.67.48.245] ([192.19.223.252]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id oa15-20020a17090b1bcf00b001ef89019352sm6659081pjb.3.2022.07.27.14.07.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7dba0e0b-b3d8-a40e-23dd-3cc7999b8fc4@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 14:07:51 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: net: dsa: lantiq_gswip: getting the first selftests to pass Content-Language: en-US To: Martin Blumenstingl , netdev@vger.kernel.org Cc: andrew@lunn.ch, vivien.didelot@gmail.com, olteanv@gmail.com, Hauke Mehrtens , Aleksander Jan Bajkowski References: From: Florian Fainelli In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org On 7/27/22 13:36, Martin Blumenstingl wrote: > Hello, > > there are some pending issues with the Lantiq GSWIP driver. > Vladimir suggested to get the kernel selftests to pass in a first step. > I am starting with > tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/dsa/local_termination.sh as my > understanding is that this contains the most basic tests and should be > the first step. Since I am in the process of re-designing my test rack at home with DSA devices, how do you run the selftests out of curiosity? Is there a nice diagram that explains how to get a physical connection set-up? I used to have between 2 and 4 Ethernet controllers dedicated to each port of the switch of the DUT so I could run bridge/standalone/bandwidth testing but I feel like this is a tad extreme and am cutting down on the number of Ethernet ports so I can put NVMe drives in the machine instead. Thanks! > > The good news is that not all tests are broken! > There are eight tests which are not passing. Those eight can be split > into two groups of four, because it's the same four tests that are > failing for "standalone" and "bridge" interfaces: > - Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address > - Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, allmulti > - Multicast IPv4 to unknown group > - Multicast IPv6 to unknown group > > What they all have in common is the fact that we're expecting that no > packets are received. But in reality packets are received. I manually > confirmed this by examining the tcpdump file which is generated by the > selftests. > > Vladimir suggested in [0]: >> [...] we'll need to make smaller steps, like disable address >> learning on standalone ports, isolate FDBs, maybe offload the bridge TX >> forwarding process (in order to populate the "Force no learning" bit in >> tag_gswip.c properly), and only then will the local_termination test >> also pass [...] > > Based on the failing tests I am wondering which step would be a good > one to start with. > Is this problem that the selftests are seeing a flooding issue? In > that case I suspect that the "interesting behavior" (of the GSWIP's > flooding behavior) that Vladimir described in [1] would be a starting > point. > > Full local_termination.sh selftest output: > TEST: lan2: Unicast IPv4 to primary MAC address [ OK ] > TEST: lan2: Unicast IPv4 to macvlan MAC address [ OK ] > TEST: lan2: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address [FAIL] > reception succeeded, but should have failed > TEST: lan2: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, promisc [ OK ] > TEST: lan2: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, allmulti [FAIL] > reception succeeded, but should have failed > TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv4 to joined group [ OK ] > TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group [FAIL] > reception succeeded, but should have failed > TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group, promisc [ OK ] > TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group, allmulti [ OK ] > TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv6 to joined group [ OK ] > TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group [FAIL] > reception succeeded, but should have failed > TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group, promisc [ OK ] > TEST: lan2: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group, allmulti [ OK ] > TEST: br0: Unicast IPv4 to primary MAC address [ OK ] > TEST: br0: Unicast IPv4 to macvlan MAC address [ OK ] > TEST: br0: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address [FAIL] > reception succeeded, but should have failed > TEST: br0: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, promisc [ OK ] > TEST: br0: Unicast IPv4 to unknown MAC address, allmulti [FAIL] > reception succeeded, but should have failed > TEST: br0: Multicast IPv4 to joined group [ OK ] > TEST: br0: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group [FAIL] > reception succeeded, but should have failed > TEST: br0: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group, promisc [ OK ] > TEST: br0: Multicast IPv4 to unknown group, allmulti [ OK ] > TEST: br0: Multicast IPv6 to joined group [ OK ] > TEST: br0: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group [FAIL] > reception succeeded, but should have failed > TEST: br0: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group, promisc [ OK ] > TEST: br0: Multicast IPv6 to unknown group, allmulti [ OK ] > > > Thank you! > Best regards, > Martin > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220706210651.ozvjcwwp2hquzmhn@skbuf/ > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220702185652.dpzrxuitacqp6m3t@skbuf/ -- Florian