On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 02:45:06PM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote: > Flavio Leitner <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:49:33AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote: > >> Recently, during some conntrack testing a bug was uncovered in a DPDK > >> PMD, which doesn't support an IPv4 packet with a zero checksum value. > >> In order to show that the connection tracking code in userspace > >> supports IPv4 UDP with a zero checksum, add a test case to enforce > >> this behavior. > >> > >> Reported-at: http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2021-January/198528.html > >> Reported-by: Paolo Valerio <[email protected]> > >> Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> tests/system-traffic.at | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/tests/system-traffic.at b/tests/system-traffic.at > >> index fb5b9a36d2..4971ccc966 100644 > >> --- a/tests/system-traffic.at > >> +++ b/tests/system-traffic.at > >> @@ -5927,6 +5927,48 @@ ovs-appctl dpif/dump-flows br0 > >> OVS_TRAFFIC_VSWITCHD_STOP > >> AT_CLEANUP > >> > >> + > >> +AT_SETUP([conntrack - IPv4 UDP zero checksum]) > >> +dnl This tracks sending zero checksum packets for udp over ipv4 > >> +CHECK_CONNTRACK() > >> +OVS_TRAFFIC_VSWITCHD_START() > >> +OVS_CHECK_CT_CLEAR() > >> + > >> +ADD_NAMESPACES(at_ns0, at_ns1) > >> +ADD_VETH(p0, at_ns0, br0, "10.1.1.1/24", "f0:00:00:01:01:01") > >> +ADD_VETH(p1, at_ns1, br0, "10.1.1.2/24", "f0:00:00:01:01:02") > >> +dnl setup ct flows > >> +AT_DATA([flows.txt], [dnl > >> +table=0,priority=10 ip,udp,ct_state=-trk action=ct(zone=1,table=1) > >> +table=0,priority=0 action=drop > >> +table=1,priority=10 ct_state=-est+trk+new,ip,ct_zone=1,in_port=1 > >> action=ct(commit,table=2) > >> +table=1,priority=10 ct_state=+est-new+trk,ct_zone=1,in_port=1 > >> action=resubmit(,2) > >> +table=1,priority=0 action=drop > >> +table=2,priority=10 ct_state=+trk+new,in_port=1 action=2 > >> +table=2,priority=10 ct_state=+trk+est action=2 > >> +]) > >> + > >> +AT_CHECK([ovs-ofctl --bundle add-flows br0 flows.txt]) > >> + > >> +# sending udp pkt > >> +NS_CHECK_EXEC([at_ns0], [$PYTHON3 $srcdir/sendpkt.py p0 f0 00 00 01 > >> 01 02 f0 00 00 01 01 01 08 00 45 00 00 28 00 01 00 00 40 11 64 c0 0a > >> 01 01 01 0a 01 01 02 04 d2 04 d2 00 14 00 00 aa aa aa aa aa aa aa aa > >> aa aa aa aa > /dev/null]) > > > > That hex string translates to this packet which doesn't use cksum: > > 12:57:40.065353 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1, offset 0, flags [none], > > proto UDP (17), length 40) > > 10.1.1.1.search-agent > 10.1.1.2.search-agent: [no cksum] UDP, > > length 12 > > Yes, there should be no UDP checksum. This is the point of this test.
Sorry, I was confirming that the hex string does use a packet as this patch says. It's good. > >> + > >> +sleep 1 > > > > Can we use OVS_WAIT_UNTIL() or OVS_WAIT_WHILE() ? > > Good idea. > > >> + > >> +dnl ensure CT picked up the packet > >> +AT_CHECK([ovs-appctl dpctl/dump-conntrack | FORMAT_CT(10.1.1)], [0], [dnl > >> +udp,orig=(src=10.1.1.1,dst=10.1.1.2,sport=<cleared>,dport=<cleared>),reply=(src=10.1.1.2,dst=10.1.1.1,sport=<cleared>,dport=<cleared>) > >> +]) > >> + > >> +AT_CHECK([ovs-ofctl dump-flows br0 | grep table=2, | > >> OFPROTO_CLEAR_DURATION_IDLE], > >> + [0], [dnl > >> + cookie=0x0, duration=<cleared>, table=2, n_packets=1, n_bytes=54, > >> idle_age=<cleared>, priority=10,ct_state=+new+trk,in_port=1 > >> actions=output:2 > >> + cookie=0x0, duration=<cleared>, table=2, n_packets=0, n_bytes=0, > >> idle_age=<cleared>, priority=10,ct_state=+est+trk actions=output:2 > >> +]) > >> + > >> +OVS_TRAFFIC_VSWITCHD_STOP > >> +AT_CLEANUP > >> + > >> AT_SETUP([conntrack - Multiple ICMP traverse]) > >> dnl This tracks sending ICMP packets via conntrack multiple times for the > >> dnl same packet > >> @@ -5971,6 +6013,7 @@ AT_CHECK([ovs-ofctl dump-flows br0 | grep table=2, | > >> OFPROTO_CLEAR_DURATION_IDLE > >> OVS_TRAFFIC_VSWITCHD_STOP > >> AT_CLEANUP > >> > >> + > > > > There mixed styles. Some use two lines, some use single line > > and some use two lines with a dnl ----- or ^L. > > > > I guess we should stick to single line, but I don't have a > > strong preference. > > Oops, this snuck in. I will remove it, and we can do something there > with a different patch if someone thinks it is needed. Cool, thanks fbl > > > Otherwise the patch works for me. > > > > Thanks, > > fbl > > > >> AT_BANNER([802.1ad]) > >> > >> AT_SETUP([802.1ad - vlan_limit]) > >> -- > >> 2.25.4 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> dev mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev -- fbl _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
