On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 12:29:07PM +0800, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> In comment 173ca26e9b51 ("samples/bpf: add comprehensive ipip, ipip6,
> ip6ip6 test") we added ip6ip6 test for bpf tunnel testing. But in commit
> 933a741e3b82 ("selftests/bpf: bpf tunnel test.") when we moved it to
> the current folder, we didn't add it.
>
> This patch add the ip6ip6 test back to bpf tunnel test. Since the
> underlay network is the same, we can reuse the ipip6 framework directly.
> Iperf test is removed as currect framework simplified it in purpose.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hangbin Liu <liuhang...@gmail.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tunnel.sh | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tunnel.sh
> b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tunnel.sh
> index bd12ec97a44d..76a00d2ef988 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tunnel.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_tunnel.sh
> @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@
> # Root namespace with metadata-mode tunnel + BPF
> # Device names and addresses:
> # veth1 IP: 172.16.1.200, IPv6: 00::22 (underlay)
> -# tunnel dev <type>11, ex: gre11, IPv4: 10.1.1.200 (overlay)
> +# tunnel dev <type>11, ex: gre11, IPv4: 10.1.1.200, IPv6: 1::22 (overlay)
> #
> # Namespace at_ns0 with native tunnel
> # Device names and addresses:
> # veth0 IPv4: 172.16.1.100, IPv6: 00::11 (underlay)
> -# tunnel dev <type>00, ex: gre00, IPv4: 10.1.1.100 (overlay)
> +# tunnel dev <type>00, ex: gre00, IPv4: 10.1.1.100, IPv6: 1::11 (overlay)
> #
> #
> # End-to-end ping packet flow
> @@ -262,11 +262,13 @@ add_ipip6tnl_tunnel()
> ip link add dev $DEV_NS type $TYPE \
> local ::11 remote ::22
> ip netns exec at_ns0 ip addr add dev $DEV_NS 10.1.1.100/24
> + ip netns exec at_ns0 ip addr add dev $DEV_NS 1::11/96
> ip netns exec at_ns0 ip link set dev $DEV_NS up
>
> # root namespace
> ip link add dev $DEV type $TYPE external
> ip addr add dev $DEV 10.1.1.200/24
> + ip addr add dev $DEV 1::22/96
> ip link set dev $DEV up
> }
>
> @@ -553,6 +555,34 @@ test_ipip6()
> echo -e ${GREEN}"PASS: $TYPE"${NC}
> }
>
> +test_ip6ip6()
> +{
> + TYPE=ip6tnl
> + DEV_NS=ip6ip6tnl00
> + DEV=ip6ip6tnl11
> + ret=0
> +
> + check $TYPE
> + config_device
> + add_ipip6tnl_tunnel
> + ip link set dev veth1 mtu 1500
> + attach_bpf $DEV ipip6_set_tunnel ipip6_get_tunnel
>From looking at the ipip6_set_tunnel in test_tunnel_kern.c.
I don't think they are testing an ip6ip6 packet.
If the intention is to test ip6ip6, why the existing
ip6ip6_set_tunnel does not need to be exercised?
> + # underlay
> + ping6 $PING_ARG ::11
> + # ip6 over ip6
> + ping6 $PING_ARG 1::11
> + check_err $?
> + ip netns exec at_ns0 ping6 $PING_ARG 1::22
> + check_err $?
> + cleanup
> +
> + if [ $ret -ne 0 ]; then
> + echo -e ${RED}"FAIL: ip6$TYPE"${NC}
> + return 1
> + fi
> + echo -e ${GREEN}"PASS: ip6$TYPE"${NC}
> +}
