tests: add DPDK segmented mbufs test #2835
Conversation
| @@ -0,0 +1,2317 @@ | |||
| %YAML 1.1 | |||
| --- | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please provide minimal YAML file to test this?
| requires: | ||
| min-version: 8 | ||
| features: | ||
| - DPDK |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be HAVE_DPDK.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ha, ok, false. It is as it should be.
Perhaps a question for @jasonish -- I don't see DPDK in the "Features" list as noted at the bottom of the https://github.com/OISF/suricata-verify/ readme page. Does it now take this information from elsewhere as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should work. run.py supports parsing --build-info lines like:
DPDK support: yes
This test runs for me when I use the linked Suricata PR with DPDK support enabled, however, it fails.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not sure why it fails, as it passes on my end, can you please run the test with verbose mode and share logs?
|
I would be happy to see a test that shows and confirms the failing linearization. After the YAML change is done, it is good for me. |
Add test to verify Suricata correctly handles segmented (chained) mbufs in DPDK mode. Uses large TLS packets that force mbuf segmentation. Ticket: 6012 Signed-off-by: mmaatuq <mmaatuq3@gatech.edu>
mmaatuq
force-pushed
the
dpdk-segmented-mbufs-6012
branch
from
19c7576 to
310e34b
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ | |||
| requires: | |||
| min-version: 8 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You also need to change this to:
min-version: 9
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As / if it will be backported to 8 then we can lower the version
5 participants
Add test to verify Suricata correctly handles segmented (chained)
mbufs in DPDK mode. Uses large TLS packets that force mbuf
segmentation.
Ticket: 6012
Redmine ticket:https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/issues/6012