> On Jun 27, 2025, at 8:59 AM, Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 9:04 PM Song Liu <song@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 7:14 PM Alexei Starovoitov >> <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> [...] >>> ./test_progs -t lsm_cgroup >>> Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED >>> ./test_progs -t lsm_cgroup >>> Summary: 1/2 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED >>> ./test_progs -t cgroup_xattr >>> Summary: 1/8 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 0 FAILED >>> ./test_progs -t lsm_cgroup >>> test_lsm_cgroup_functional:PASS:bind(ETH_P_ALL) 0 nsec >>> (network_helpers.c:121: errno: Cannot assign requested address) Failed >>> to bind socket >>> test_lsm_cgroup_functional:FAIL:start_server unexpected start_server: >>> actual -1 < expected 0 >>> (network_helpers.c:360: errno: Bad file descriptor) getsockopt(SOL_PROTOCOL) >>> test_lsm_cgroup_functional:FAIL:connect_to_fd unexpected >>> connect_to_fd: actual -1 < expected 0 >>> test_lsm_cgroup_functional:FAIL:accept unexpected accept: actual -1 < expected 0 >>> test_lsm_cgroup_functional:FAIL:getsockopt unexpected getsockopt: >>> actual -1 < expected 0 >>> test_lsm_cgroup_functional:FAIL:sk_priority unexpected sk_priority: >>> actual 0 != expected 234 >>> ... >>> Summary: 0/1 PASSED, 0 SKIPPED, 1 FAILED >>> >>> >>> Song, >>> Please follow up with the fix for selftest. >>> It will be in bpf-next only. >> >> The issue is because cgroup_xattr calls "ip link set dev lo up" >> in setup, and calls "ip link set dev lo down" in cleanup. Most >> other tests only call "ip link set dev lo up". IOW, it appears to >> me that cgroup_xattr is doing the cleanup properly. To fix this, >> we can either remove "dev lo down" from cgroup_xattr, or add >> "dev lo up" to lsm_cgroups. Do you have any preference one >> way or another? > > It messes with "lo" without switching netns? Ouch. Ah, I see the problem now. > Not sure what tests you copied that code from, > but all "ip" commands, ping_group_range, and sockets > don't need to be in the test. Instead of triggering > progs through lsm/socket_connect hook can't you use > a simple hook like lsm/bpf or lsm/file_open that doesn't require > networking setup ? Yeah, let me fix the test with a different hook. Thanks, Song
