On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 04:20:58PM +0000, Song Liu wrote: > > > > 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. Where's the patch?
