On 6/22/20 11:57 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:38 PM Yonghong Song <y...@fb.com> wrote:
On my VM, I got identical results between /proc/net/udp[6] and
the udp{4,6} bpf iterator.
For udp6:
$ cat /sys/fs/bpf/p1
sl local_address remote_address
st tx_queue rx_queue tr tm->when retrnsmt uid timeout inode ref pointer
drops
1405: 000080FE00000000FF7CC4D0D9EFE4FE:0222
00000000000000000000000000000000:0000 07 00000000:00000000 00:00000000 00000000
193 0 19183 2 0000000029eab111 0
$ cat /proc/net/udp6
sl local_address remote_address
st tx_queue rx_queue tr tm->when retrnsmt uid timeout inode ref pointer
drops
1405: 000080FE00000000FF7CC4D0D9EFE4FE:0222
00000000000000000000000000000000:0000 07 00000000:00000000 00:00000000 00000000
193 0 19183 2 0000000029eab111 0
For udp4:
$ cat /sys/fs/bpf/p4
sl local_address rem_address st tx_queue rx_queue tr tm->when retrnsmt
uid timeout inode ref pointer drops
2007: 00000000:1F90 00000000:0000 07 00000000:00000000 00:00000000 00000000
0 0 72540 2 000000004ede477a 0
$ cat /proc/net/udp
sl local_address rem_address st tx_queue rx_queue tr tm->when retrnsmt
uid timeout inode ref pointer drops
2007: 00000000:1F90 00000000:0000 07 00000000:00000000 00:00000000 00000000
0 0 72540 2 000000004ede477a 0
---
patch subject prefix is misleading: tools/bpf -> selftests/bpf?
Sure I can do this.
Otherwise:
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andr...@fb.com>
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter.h | 16 ++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp4.c | 71 +++++++++++++++++
.../selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp6.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 166 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp4.c
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/bpf_iter_udp6.c
[...]
