On 8/19/24 22:05, Jakub Sitnicki wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 06:14 PM +02, Michal Luczaj wrote: >> On 8/6/24 19:45, Jakub Sitnicki wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 06, 2024 at 07:18 PM +02, Michal Luczaj wrote: >>>> Great, thanks for the review. With this completed, I guess we can unwind >>>> the (mail) stack to [1]. Is that ingress-to-local et al. something you >>>> wanted to take care of yourself or can I give it a try? >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/87msmqn9ws....@cloudflare.com/ >>> >>> I haven't stated any work on. You're welcome to tackle that. >>> >>> All I have is a toy test that I've used to generate the redirect matrix. >>> Perhaps it can serve as inspiration: >>> >>> https://github.com/jsitnicki/sockmap-redir-matrix >> >> All right, please let me know if this is more or less what you meant and >> I'll post the whole series for a review (+patch to purge sockmap_listen of >> redir tests, fix misnomers). [...] > > Gave it a look as promised. It makes sense to me as well to put these > tests in a new module. There will be some overlap with sockmap_listen, > which has diverged from its inital scope, but we can dedup that later. >> One thought that I had is that it could make sense to test the not > supported redirect combos (and expect an error). Sometimes folks make > changes and enable some parts of the API by accient. > > Just a suggestion. This will be a nice improvement to the test coverage > even without the negative tests. > ...
So this took me for a bit of a journey (sorry for delay), but after tweaking some things here and there, here's v2 [1]. There are not that many changes, but I did try introducing negative tests and deduping vs. sockmap_listen. Please let me know what you think. https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250411-selftests-sockmap-redir-v2-0-5f9b018d6...@rbox.co/ Thanks, Michal
