[LTP] [PATCHv3 3/3] network/stress/icmp: use ip xfrm for icmp4-uni-basic01 ipsec testing

[Alexey Kodanev]

Hi,

On 04/06/2016 10:52 AM, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 03:41:36PM +0300, Alexey Kodanev wrote:
>>> Does it looks like
>>>
>>> icmp4-uni-basic01 icmp-uni-basic
>>> icmp4-uni-basic02 DO_IPSEC=true IPSEC_PROTO=ah IPSEC_MODE=transport ICMP_SIZE_ARRAY="10 100 1000 10000 65483"; icmp-uni-basic
>>> ...
>>> icmp6-uni-basic01 icmp-uni-basic -6
>>> icmp6-uni-basic02 DO_IPSEC=true IPSEC_PROTO=ah IPSEC_MODE=transport ICMP_SIZE_ARRAY="10 100 1000 10000 65503"; icmp-uni-basic -6
>> Or something like network/virt_lib.sh does with getopts, so instead of
>> setting
>> environment variables we would have easy to look at runtest lines, e.g.:
>>
>> icmp6-uni-basic01 icmp-uni-basic -6
>> icmp6-uni-basic02 icmp-uni-basic -6 -p ah -m transport -s "10 100 1000 10000 65503"
> OK, I will try this way
>
>>>> I still think we should add it to the library. tst_ping replaces
>>>> 'icmp4/6_check_connectivity'. And adding variable message size there,
>>>> will replace ns-echoclient library tool.
>>> I did't find icmp4/6_check_connectivity will do icmp msg_size check. But anyway,
>>> here is a msg_sizes version. how do you think? should we use ROD ping... directly?
>> It's in "ns-echoclient".
> ns-echoclient only ping remote but do not check the return status.

Yeah, I know, that's the reason you removed it in your patch.

>
>> About ROD in tst_ping()... may be we shouldn't use it here. It's quite
>> simple
>> to call "ROD tst_ping" anyway.
>>
>> Also I'm not sure we won't have tests that pass on failed ping. For example,
>> vxlan tests set different IDs and check that there is no connectivity. In
>> this particular cases,
>> the test shouldn't exit with TBROK but return TPASS status. We could simply
>> return ping
>> status here and let test to decide what to do next.
> Here comes back the old discuss. tst_ping is used for check connectivity. If
> we use msg_sizes="10 100 1000 10000 65530" and failed when send msg_size
> 10000 and return -1. How the test know which msg size failed? That's the
> reason I feel we should let tst_ping check one msg_size each time.

We could print it in tst_ping() as information message before 'return 1',
will it be enough?


Thanks,
Alexey

> Thanks
> Hangbin
>
>>> tst_ping()
>>> {
>>>          # The max number of ICMP echo request
>>>          PING_MAX=${PING_MAX:-"10"}
>>>
>>>          local src_iface=${1:-"$(tst_iface)"}
>>>          local dst_addr=${2:-"$(tst_ipaddr rhost)"}
>>>          # ping cmd use 56 as default message size
>>>          local msg_sizes=${3:-"56"}
>> local msg_sizes=${@:3}
>>
>> for size in ${msg_sizes:-"56"}; do
>>      ping...
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Alexey
>>
>>>          for size in $msg_sizes; do
>>>                  ping$TST_IPV6 -I $src_iface -c $PING_MAX $dst_addr \
>>>                          -s $msg_size > /dev/null 2>&1
>>>                  if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
>>>                          tst_brkm TBROK "There is no IPv${IP_VER:-4} connectivity with msg_size $msg_size"
>>>                  else
>>>                          tst_resm TPASS "There is IPv${IP_VER:-4} connectivity with msg_size $msg_size"
>>>                  fi
>>>          done
>>> }
>>>
>>> Thanks & Best Regards
>>> Hangbin Liu
>>
>> -- 
>> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp