On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 1:02 PM Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com> wrote: > > create a bunch of virtual topology and verify that > GRO_FRAG_LIST and GRO_FWD aggregate the ingress
what are these constants? Aliases for SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST and ? > packets as expected, and the aggregate packets > are segmented correctly when landing on a socket > > Also test L4 aggregation on top of UDP tunnel (vxlan) > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pab...@redhat.com> Nice comprehensive test, thanks! > --- > tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile | 1 + > tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh | 251 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 252 insertions(+) > create mode 100755 tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile > b/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile > index 25f198bec0b25..2d71b283dde36 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/Makefile > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ TEST_PROGS += drop_monitor_tests.sh > TEST_PROGS += vrf_route_leaking.sh > TEST_PROGS += bareudp.sh > TEST_PROGS += unicast_extensions.sh > +TEST_PROGS += udpgro_fwd.sh > TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED := in_netns.sh > TEST_GEN_FILES = socket nettest > TEST_GEN_FILES += psock_fanout psock_tpacket msg_zerocopy reuseport_addr_any > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh > b/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh > new file mode 100755 > index 0000000000000..ac7ac56a27524 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro_fwd.sh > @@ -0,0 +1,251 @@ > +#!/bin/sh > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > + > +readonly BASE="ns-$(mktemp -u XXXXXX)" > +readonly SRC=2 > +readonly DST=1 > +readonly DST_NAT=100 > +readonly NS_SRC=$BASE$SRC > +readonly NS_DST=$BASE$DST > + > +# "baremetal" network used for raw UDP traffic > +readonly BM_NET_V4=192.168.1. > +readonly BM_NET_V6=2001:db8:: > + > +# "overlay" network used for UDP over UDP tunnel traffic > +readonly OL_NET_V4=172.16.1. > +readonly OL_NET_V6=2002:db8:: is it okay to use a prod64 prefix for this? should this be another subnet of 2001:db8:: instead? of fd..
