[bpf-next,v2] selftests/bpf: Drop netns helpers in mptcp

Commit Message

Geliang Tang Oct. 30, 2024, 5:45 a.m. UTC

From: Geliang Tang <[e-mail]>

New netns selftest helpers netns_new() and netns_free() has been added
in network_helpers.c, let's use them in mptcp selftests too instead of
using MPTCP's own helpers create_netns() and cleanup_netns().

Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <[e-mail]>
---
v2:
 - Use netns_new/netns_free instead of create_netns/cleanup_netns as
Martin suggested.

v1:
  selftests/bpf: Use make/remove netns helpers in mptcp
---
 .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c  | 42 ++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

Comments

Geliang Tang Oct. 30, 2024, 9:37 a.m. UTC | #1

Hi Matt,

I need some help.

On Wed, 2024-10-30 at 05:50 +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> Dear patch submitter,
> 
> CI has tested the following submission:
> Status:     CONFLICT
> Name:       [bpf-next,v2] selftests/bpf: Drop netns helpers in mptcp
> Patchwork: 
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=904505&state=*
> PR:         https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/7982
> 
> Please rebase your submission onto the most recent upstream change
> and resubmit
> the patch to get it tested again.

BPF CI complains that this patch cannot be merged.

This patch needs to be merged into "for-next" branch of bpf-next, not
"master" branch. But CI defaults to merging into "master" branch, so
the merge cannot succeed. Do you know how I should handle this?

Thanks,
-Geliang

> 
> 
> Please note: this email is coming from an unmonitored mailbox. If you
> have
> questions or feedback, please reach out to the Meta Kernel CI team at
> [e-mail].

Matthieu Baerts Oct. 30, 2024, 10:22 a.m. UTC | #2

Hi Geliang,

On 30/10/2024 10:37, Geliang Tang wrote:
> Hi Matt,
> 
> I need some help.
> 
> On Wed, 2024-10-30 at 05:50 +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
>> Dear patch submitter,
>>
>> CI has tested the following submission:
>> Status:     CONFLICT
>> Name:       [bpf-next,v2] selftests/bpf: Drop netns helpers in mptcp
>> Patchwork: 
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=904505&state=*
>> PR:         https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/7982
>>
>> Please rebase your submission onto the most recent upstream change
>> and resubmit
>> the patch to get it tested again.
> 
> BPF CI complains that this patch cannot be merged.
> 
> This patch needs to be merged into "for-next" branch of bpf-next, not
> "master" branch. But CI defaults to merging into "master" branch, so
> the merge cannot succeed. Do you know how I should handle this?

I guess what you need is to specify 'bpf-next/net' in the subject:

  [PATCH bpf-next/net v3] (...)

And rebase your patch on top of bpf/bpf-next.git, but the 'net' branch.

That's because they did some changes in their BPF trees:


https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CAADnVQJgwGh+Jf=[e-mail]/

In short, in bpf/bpf-next.git you have 3 branches:

- master: that will be use to send PR to Linus directly, and not netdev

- net: new: this was still depend on net-next, PR will be sent to netdev

- for-next: this one should be a merge of the two ↑, for linux-next

For all modifications linked to BPF and MPTCP, I guess they will need to
be tagged "bpf-next/net" (or "bpf" for the fixes).

I guess you should not use the 'for-next' branch.

Cheers,
Matt

Geliang Tang Oct. 31, 2024, 7:38 a.m. UTC | #3

On Wed, 2024-10-30 at 11:22 +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Geliang,
> 
> On 30/10/2024 10:37, Geliang Tang wrote:
> > Hi Matt,
> > 
> > I need some help.
> > 
> > On Wed, 2024-10-30 at 05:50 +0000, [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Dear patch submitter,
> > > 
> > > CI has tested the following submission:
> > > Status:     CONFLICT
> > > Name:       [bpf-next,v2] selftests/bpf: Drop netns helpers in
> > > mptcp
> > > Patchwork: 
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=904505&state=*
> > > PR:         https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/pull/7982
> > > 
> > > Please rebase your submission onto the most recent upstream
> > > change
> > > and resubmit
> > > the patch to get it tested again.
> > 
> > BPF CI complains that this patch cannot be merged.
> > 
> > This patch needs to be merged into "for-next" branch of bpf-next,
> > not
> > "master" branch. But CI defaults to merging into "master" branch,
> > so
> > the merge cannot succeed. Do you know how I should handle this?
> 
> I guess what you need is to specify 'bpf-next/net' in the subject:
> 
>   [PATCH bpf-next/net v3] (...)
> 
> And rebase your patch on top of bpf/bpf-next.git, but the 'net'
> branch.
> 
> That's because they did some changes in their BPF trees:
> 
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/CAADnVQJgwGh+Jf=[e-mail]/
> 
> In short, in bpf/bpf-next.git you have 3 branches:
> 
> - master: that will be use to send PR to Linus directly, and not
> netdev
> 
> - net: new: this was still depend on net-next, PR will be sent to
> netdev
> 
> - for-next: this one should be a merge of the two ↑, for linux-next
> 
> For all modifications linked to BPF and MPTCP, I guess they will need
> to
> be tagged "bpf-next/net" (or "bpf" for the fixes).
> 
> I guess you should not use the 'for-next' branch.

Got it. Thanks very much.

-Geliang

> 
> Cheers,
> Matt

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
index be3cad2aff77..f8eb7f9d4fd2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/mptcp.c
@@ -69,24 +69,6 @@  struct mptcp_storage {
 	char ca_name[TCP_CA_NAME_MAX];
 };
 
-static struct nstoken *create_netns(void)
-{
-	SYS(fail, "ip netns add %s", NS_TEST);
-	SYS(fail, "ip -net %s link set dev lo up", NS_TEST);
-
-	return open_netns(NS_TEST);
-fail:
-	return NULL;
-}
-
-static void cleanup_netns(struct nstoken *nstoken)
-{
-	if (nstoken)
-		close_netns(nstoken);
-
-	SYS_NOFAIL("ip netns del %s", NS_TEST);
-}
-
 static int start_mptcp_server(int family, const char *addr_str, __u16 port,
 			      int timeout_ms)
 {
@@ -206,15 +188,15 @@  static int run_test(int cgroup_fd, int server_fd, bool is_mptcp)
 
 static void test_base(void)
 {
-	struct nstoken *nstoken = NULL;
+	struct netns_obj *netns = NULL;
 	int server_fd, cgroup_fd;
 
 	cgroup_fd = test__join_cgroup("/mptcp");
 	if (!ASSERT_GE(cgroup_fd, 0, "test__join_cgroup"))
 		return;
 
-	nstoken = create_netns();
-	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(nstoken, "create_netns"))
+	netns = netns_new(NS_TEST, true);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(netns, "netns_new"))
 		goto fail;
 
 	/* without MPTCP */
@@ -237,7 +219,7 @@  static void test_base(void)
 	close(server_fd);
 
 fail:
-	cleanup_netns(nstoken);
+	netns_free(netns);
 	close(cgroup_fd);
 }
 
@@ -322,21 +304,21 @@  static int run_mptcpify(int cgroup_fd)
 
 static void test_mptcpify(void)
 {
-	struct nstoken *nstoken = NULL;
+	struct netns_obj *netns = NULL;
 	int cgroup_fd;
 
 	cgroup_fd = test__join_cgroup("/mptcpify");
 	if (!ASSERT_GE(cgroup_fd, 0, "test__join_cgroup"))
 		return;
 
-	nstoken = create_netns();
-	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(nstoken, "create_netns"))
+	netns = netns_new(NS_TEST, true);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(netns, "netns_new"))
 		goto fail;
 
 	ASSERT_OK(run_mptcpify(cgroup_fd), "run_mptcpify");
 
 fail:
-	cleanup_netns(nstoken);
+	netns_free(netns);
 	close(cgroup_fd);
 }
 
@@ -414,7 +396,7 @@  static void run_subflow(void)
 static void test_subflow(void)
 {
 	struct mptcp_subflow *skel;
-	struct nstoken *nstoken;
+	struct netns_obj *netns;
 	int cgroup_fd;
 
 	cgroup_fd = test__join_cgroup("/mptcp_subflow");
@@ -437,8 +419,8 @@  static void test_subflow(void)
 	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(skel->links._getsockopt_subflow, "attach _getsockopt_subflow"))
 		goto skel_destroy;
 
-	nstoken = create_netns();
-	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(nstoken, "create_netns: mptcp_subflow"))
+	netns = netns_new(NS_TEST, true);
+	if (!ASSERT_OK_PTR(netns, "netns_new: mptcp_subflow"))
 		goto skel_destroy;
 
 	if (endpoint_init("subflow") < 0)
@@ -447,7 +429,7 @@  static void test_subflow(void)
 	run_subflow();
 
 close_netns:
-	cleanup_netns(nstoken);
+	netns_free(netns);
 skel_destroy:
 	mptcp_subflow__destroy(skel);
 close_cgroup: