On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 7:28 PM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsh...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On 2023/12/7 14:00, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 7:35 PM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsh...@huawei.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> >> +
> >> +static int tun_alloc(void)
> >> +{
> >> + struct ifreq ifr;
> >> + int fd, e;
> >> +
> >> + fd = open("/dev/net/tun", O_RDWR);
> >> + if (fd < 0) {
> >> + perror("Cannot open /dev/net/tun");
> >> + return fd;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + memset(&ifr, 0, sizeof(ifr));
> >> +
> >> + ifr.ifr_flags = IFF_TUN | IFF_NO_PI;
> >
> > Why did you use IFF_TUN but not IFF_TAP here?
>
> To be honest, no particular reason, I just picked IFF_TUN and it happened
> to work for me to test changing in vhost_net_build_xdp().
>
> Is there a particular reason you perfer the IFF_TAP over IFF_TUN?
No preference here. It only matters if you want to test L2 or L3.
>
> >
> >> + strncpy(ifr.ifr_name, "tun0", IFNAMSIZ);
> >
> > tun0 is pretty common if there's a VPN. Do we need some randomized name
> > here?
>
> How about something like below?
>
> snprintf(ifr.ifr_name, IFNAMSIZ, "tun_%d", getpid());
>
> >
> >
> >> +
> >> + e = ioctl(fd, TUNSETIFF, (void *) &ifr);
> >> + if (e < 0) {
> >> + perror("ioctl[TUNSETIFF]");
> >> + close(fd);
> >> + return e;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return fd;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/* Unused */
> >> +void *__kmalloc_fake, *__kfree_ignore_start, *__kfree_ignore_end;
> >
> > Why do we need trick like these here?
>
> That is because of the below error:
> tools/virtio/./linux/kernel.h:58: undefined reference to `__kmalloc_fake'
>
> when virtio_ring.c is compiled in the userspace, the kmalloc raleted function
> is implemented in tools/virtio/./linux/kernel.h, which requires those varibles
> to be defined.
>
> >
> >> +
> >> +struct vq_info {
> >> + int kick;
> >> + int call;
> >> + int num;
> >> + int idx;
> >> + void *ring;
> >> + /* copy used for control */
> >> + struct vring vring;
> >> + struct virtqueue *vq;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +struct vdev_info {
> >> + struct virtio_device vdev;
> >> + int control;
> >> + struct pollfd fds[1];
> >> + struct vq_info vqs[1];
> >> + int nvqs;
> >> + void *buf;
> >> + size_t buf_size;
> >> + struct vhost_memory *mem;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static struct vhost_vring_file no_backend = { .index = 1, .fd = -1 },
> >> + backend = { .index = 1, .fd = 1 };
> >
> > A magic number like fd = 1 is pretty confusing.
> >
> > And I don't see why we need global variables here.
>
> I was using the virtio_test.c as reference, will try to remove it
> if it is possible.
>
> >
> >> +static const struct vhost_vring_state null_state = {};
> >> +
>
> ..
>
> >> +
> >> +done:
> >> + backend.fd = tun_alloc();
> >> + assert(backend.fd >= 0);
> >> + vdev_info_init(&dev, features);
> >> + vq_info_add(&dev, 256);
> >> + run_test(&dev, &dev.vqs[0], delayed, batch, reset, nbufs);
> >
> > I'd expect we are testing some basic traffic here. E.g can we use a
> > packet socket then we can test both tx and rx?
>
> Yes, only rx for tun is tested.
> Do you have an idea how to test the tx too? As I am not familar enough
> with vhost_net and tun yet.
Maybe you can have a packet socket to bind to the tun/tap. Then you can test:
1) TAP RX: by write a packet via virtqueue through vhost_net and read
it from packet socket
2) TAP TX: by write via packet socket and read it from the virtqueue
through vhost_net
Thanks
>
> >
> > Thanks
>
