Add a regression test for TCP socket setting DSCP.
AbandonedPublic
Actions

Authored by olivier on Jan 11 2022, 9:21 PM.

Details

Reviewers

None

Group Reviewers

tests
transport

Diff Detail

Repository

rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion

Lint

Lint Passed

Unit

No Test Coverage

Build Status

Buildable 43866
Build 40754: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

olivier created this revision.Jan 11 2022, 9:21 PM

Herald added a reviewer: transport. · View Herald TranscriptJan 11 2022, 9:21 PM

Herald added subscribers: glebius, melifaro, bz and 3 others. · View Herald Transcript

olivier requested review of this revision.Jan 11 2022, 9:21 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B43866: Diff 101323.Jan 11 2022, 9:21 PM

It's great we'll get DSCP tests!
Nit: maybe it's worth trying to have it encoded with python-scapy? It has both sending and receiving support for all kind of packets.
Happy to chat more on that.

In D33854#765560, @melifaro wrote:

It's great we'll get DSCP tests!
Nit: maybe it's worth trying to have it encoded with python-scapy? It has both sending and receiving support for all kind of packets.
Happy to chat more on that.

This script was written as a troubleshooting tool (without any other dependency than the base system) and later re-used to be included in the regression tests suite: This is why it currently doesn't use python-scapy.
So, does it mean that using python-scapy could simplify the complex tcpdump output parsing ?

In D33854#765597, @olivier wrote:

In D33854#765560, @melifaro wrote:

It's great we'll get DSCP tests!
Nit: maybe it's worth trying to have it encoded with python-scapy? It has both sending and receiving support for all kind of packets.
Happy to chat more on that.

This script was written a as a troubleshooting tool (without any other dependency than the base system) and later re-used to be included in the regression tests suite: This is why I currently doesn't python-scapy.
So, does it mean that using python-scapy could simplify the complex tcpdump output parsing ?

I could add support for TOS and TTL (and its cousins for IPv6) to packetdrill. Then you could use a simple packetdrill scripts. I think this was added to the upstream version after I forked it. So it is a matter of picking the right lines of code...

In D33854#765599, @tuexen wrote:

I could add support for TOS and TTL (and its cousins for IPv6) to packetdrill. Then you could use a simple packetdrill scripts. I think this was added to the upstream version after I forked it. So it is a matter of picking the right lines of code...

Yes indeed: packetdrill is the tool used for TCP regression test, and this regression test could belong to the tcp regression test.

In D33854#766053, @olivier wrote:

In D33854#765599, @tuexen wrote:

I could add support for TOS and TTL (and its cousins for IPv6) to packetdrill. Then you could use a simple packetdrill scripts. I think this was added to the upstream version after I forked it. So it is a matter of picking the right lines of code...

Yes indeed: packetdrill is the tool used for TCP regression test, and this regression test could belong to the tcp regression test.

OK, I'll add this.

In D33854#766053, @olivier wrote:

In D33854#765599, @tuexen wrote:

I could add support for TOS and TTL (and its cousins for IPv6) to packetdrill. Then you could use a simple packetdrill scripts. I think this was added to the upstream version after I forked it. So it is a matter of picking the right lines of code...

Yes indeed: packetdrill is the tool used for TCP regression test, and this regression test could belong to the tcp regression test.

I have added support for TOS/traffic class and TTL/hop limit testing to packetdrill and also added 8 tests to the TCP test suite. Please let me know, if additional things should be tested. You need the latest version of packetdrill from freebsd-net.