On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 11:46 AM Andrew Bailey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Port over the IP GRE test suite from old DTS to next DTS. This test > suite covers GRE tunneling and checksum offload verification using this > protocol. > > Bugzilla ID: 1480 > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Bailey <[email protected]> > --- > doc/api/dts/tests.TestSuite_ip_gre.rst | 8 + > dts/api/testpmd/__init__.py | 23 ++ > dts/tests/TestSuite_ip_gre.py | 301 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 332 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 doc/api/dts/tests.TestSuite_ip_gre.rst > create mode 100644 dts/tests/TestSuite_ip_gre.py > > diff --git a/doc/api/dts/tests.TestSuite_ip_gre.rst > b/doc/api/dts/tests.TestSuite_ip_gre.rst > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..e8ce01dc0b > --- /dev/null > +++ b/doc/api/dts/tests.TestSuite_ip_gre.rst > @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause > + > +ip_gre Test Suite > +================= > + > +.. automodule:: tests.TestSuite_ip_gre > + :members: > + :show-inheritance: > diff --git a/dts/api/testpmd/__init__.py b/dts/api/testpmd/__init__.py > index e9187440bb..bb5cbd6725 100644 > --- a/dts/api/testpmd/__init__.py > +++ b/dts/api/testpmd/__init__.py > @@ -951,6 +951,29 @@ def set_flow_control( > f"Testpmd failed to set the {flow_ctrl} in port > {port}." > ) > > + def set_csum_parse_tunnel(self, port: int, on: bool, verify: bool = > True) -> None: > + """Set parse tunnel on or of in testpmd for a given port. > Should be “off” not “of” > + > + Args: > + port: The ID of the requested port > + on: set parse tunnel on if `on` is :data:`True`, otherwise off > + verify: if :data:`True`, the output of the command is scanned > to verify that > + parse tunnel was set successfully > + > + Raises: > + InteractiveCommandExecutionError: If `verify` is :data:`True` > and the command > + fails to execute. > + > + """ > + output = self.send_command(f"csum parse-tunnel {'on' if on else > 'off'} {port}") > + if verify and f"Parse tunnel is {'on' if on else'off'}" not in > output: > Missing a space after "else". > + self._logger.debug( > + f"Testpmd failed to set csum parse-tunnel {'on' if on > else 'off'} in port {port}" > + ) > + raise InteractiveCommandExecutionError( > + f"Testpmd failed to set csum parse-tunnel {'on' if on > else 'off'} in port {port}" > + ) > + > def show_port_flow_info(self, port: int) -> TestPmdPortFlowCtrl | > None: > """Show port info flow. > > diff --git a/dts/tests/TestSuite_ip_gre.py b/dts/tests/TestSuite_ip_gre.py > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..fc51eef181 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/dts/tests/TestSuite_ip_gre.py > @@ -0,0 +1,301 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause > +# Copyright(c) 2026 University of New Hampshire > + > +"""DPDK IP GRE test suite.""" > + > +from scapy.layers.inet import GRE, IP, TCP, UDP > +from scapy.layers.inet6 import IPv6 > +from scapy.layers.l2 import Dot1Q, Ether > +from scapy.layers.sctp import SCTP > +from scapy.packet import Packet > + > +from api.capabilities import ( > + NicCapability, > + requires_nic_capability, > +) > +from api.packet import send_packet_and_capture > +from api.test import verify > +from api.testpmd import TestPmd > +from api.testpmd.config import SimpleForwardingModes > +from api.testpmd.types import ( > + ChecksumOffloadOptions, > + PacketOffloadFlag, > + RtePTypes, > + TestPmdVerbosePacket, > +) > +from framework.test_suite import TestSuite, func_test > + > +SRC_ID = "FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF" > Why did you choose the broadcast address instead of a "normal" address? Just want to hear your reasoning. > + > + > +class TestIpGre(TestSuite): > + """IP GRE test suite.""" > + > + def _check_for_matching_packet( > + self, output: list[TestPmdVerbosePacket], flags: RtePTypes > + ) -> bool: > + """Returns :data:`True` if the packet in verbose output contains > all specified flags.""" > + for packet in output: > + if packet.src_mac == SRC_ID: > + if flags not in packet.hw_ptype and flags not in > packet.sw_ptype: > + return False > + return True > + > + def _send_packet_and_verify_flags( > + self, expected_flag: RtePTypes, packet: Packet, testpmd: TestPmd > + ) -> None: > + """Sends a packet to the DUT and verifies the verbose ptype > flags.""" > + send_packet_and_capture(packet=packet) > + verbose_output = > testpmd.extract_verbose_output(testpmd.stop(verify=True)) > + valid = self._check_for_matching_packet(output=verbose_output, > flags=expected_flag) > + verify(valid, f"Packet type flag did not match the expected flag: > {expected_flag}.") Is it worth logging a packet transmission issue vs a flag setting / flag processing issue in different ways? And re the previous 2 functions if verbose_output is None will _check_for_matching_packet return True in error? Just checking that this is sound. > + > + def _setup_session( > + self, testpmd: TestPmd, expected_flags: list[RtePTypes], > packet_list=list[Packet] > + ) -> None: > + """Sets the forwarding and verbose mode of each test case > interactive shell session.""" > + testpmd.set_forward_mode(SimpleForwardingModes.rxonly) > + testpmd.set_verbose(level=1) > + for i in range(0, len(packet_list)): > + testpmd.start(verify=True) > + self._send_packet_and_verify_flags( > + expected_flag=expected_flags[i], packet=packet_list[i], > testpmd=testpmd > + ) > If expected_flags and packet_list are related lists of the same length, is it better if we use 1 list of tuples [(expected flag, packet)]? + > + def _send_packet_and_verify_checksum( > + self, packet: Packet, good_L4: bool, good_IP: bool, testpmd: > TestPmd > If we are going to say good_L4 can we say good_L3 or does that reduce clarity to you? Figure we should stay consistent. > + ) -> None: > + """Send packet and verify verbose output matches expected > output.""" > + testpmd.start() > + send_packet_and_capture(packet=packet) > + verbose_output = testpmd.extract_verbose_output(testpmd.stop()) > + is_IP = is_L4 = None > + for testpmd_packet in verbose_output: > + if testpmd_packet.src_mac == SRC_ID: > + is_IP = PacketOffloadFlag.RTE_MBUF_F_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD in > testpmd_packet.ol_flags > + is_L4 = PacketOffloadFlag.RTE_MBUF_F_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD in > testpmd_packet.ol_flags > is_IP -> good_L3_checksum? If the meaning of the is_IP variable is that there is an IP layer, I disagree with the name because it is possible for there to be an IP layer and a bad checksum. I do see below the verify logic is for if the checksum is correct. Do we have any logic here to verify we are acting on the correct packet, given that it may not be a quiet wire? > + verify( > + is_IP is not None and is_L4 is not None, > + "Test packet was dropped when it should have been received.", > Reviewed-by: Patrick Robb <[email protected]>
