Re: [PATCH net-next 8/8] selftests: net: add UDP GRO forwarding self-tests

[Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 1:02 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> create a bunch of virtual topology and verify that
> GRO_FRAG_LIST and GRO_FWD aggregate the ingress

what are these constants? Aliases for SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST and ?

> packets as expected, and the aggregate packets
> are segmented correctly when landing on a socket
>
> Also test L4 aggregation on top of UDP tunnel (vxlan)
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>

Nice comprehensive test, thanks!

> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile      |   1 +
>  tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh | 251 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 252 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile
> index 25f198bec0b25..2d71b283dde36 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ TEST_PROGS += drop_monitor_tests.sh
>  TEST_PROGS += vrf_route_leaking.sh
>  TEST_PROGS += bareudp.sh
>  TEST_PROGS += unicast_extensions.sh
> +TEST_PROGS += udpgro_fwd.sh
>  TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED := in_netns.sh
>  TEST_GEN_FILES =  socket nettest
>  TEST_GEN_FILES += psock_fanout psock_tpacket msg_zerocopy reuseport_addr_any
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh
> new file mode 100755
> index 0000000000000..ac7ac56a27524
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh
> @@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
> +#!/bin/sh
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +
> +readonly BASE="ns-$(mktemp -u XXXXXX)"
> +readonly SRC=2
> +readonly DST=1
> +readonly DST_NAT=100
> +readonly NS_SRC=$BASE$SRC
> +readonly NS_DST=$BASE$DST
> +
> +# "baremetal" network used for raw UDP traffic
> +readonly BM_NET_V4=192.168.1.
> +readonly BM_NET_V6=2001:db8::
> +
> +# "overlay" network used for UDP over UDP tunnel traffic
> +readonly OL_NET_V4=172.16.1.
> +readonly OL_NET_V6=2002:db8::

is it okay to use a prod64 prefix for this? should this be another
subnet of 2001:db8:: instead? of fd..