osmocom-net-gprs October 2017

osmocom-net-gprs@lists.osmocom.org

3 participants
6 discussions

RFC: unit tests for kernel GTP module
by Harald Welte 01 Jan '26

01 Jan '26

Dear GTP-interested folks, I would love to somehow get towards some degree of unit testing (or even "continuous integration") for teh kernel GTP code. We currently have the original code in the kernel, we had some recent small fixes and now are getting more patches into place. With relatively few active users out there (and probably none of them in production yet), it's particularly easy to introduce regressions while working on the code. Also, having tested new code even against a test set with limited covrage could help to get more confidence in new patches and thus get them merged sooner. Using tools like sgsnemu of OpenGGSN and the command line tools included in libgtpnl, it should be possibel to cook up some scripts for testing. Even the most basic set of tests would be an improvement over what we have now. One could also think about pcap replay to test with hand-crafted or real-world packets from other GTP implementations. As much as I'd like to put something like this into place myself, I don't think I will be able to work much on this in the near future. The GTP module at this point is a pure hobby and contrary to some years ago while I started it, I don't have any contract work in the GTP area at this point, so other projects currently unfortunately get more attention. So in case somebody among the GTP-interested parties (Travelping, OAI, ...) would want to do something in terms of testing, I'd be more than happy if somebody would step ahead. Otherwise it's all just vapourware going to end up on my ever-growing TODO list :/ Also, if netdev folks have some ideas/pointers about possible frameworks/tools for this kind of testing [it must exist for at least some other kernel networking code?]: Please let me know. I'd be interested to have a look if there's something that can be used as a basis (starting network namespaces, sending/transmitting packets, test case startup/teardown, ...) My "old school" approach would have been to start one or multiple user-mode-linux kernels (those that are to be tested), and then have scripts that set up a gtp socket and gtp tunnels via the libgtp command line tools, and throw packets at that. But I'm sure there must be quite powerful frameworks for that kind of testing in the 21st century? How do other tunneling implementations handle this? Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

4 5

Want to do paid work on Osmocom? sysmocom is hiring
by Harald Welte 01 Nov '17

01 Nov '17

Dear Osmocom community, I would like to point out that at sysmocom, we're currently (again) hiring [1]. If you happen to have an interest in open source cellular communications and are fluent in C language development, we would love to hear from you. sysmocom probably doesn't need any introduction here, but just in case: The company was founded by Holger Freyther and Harald Welte, two of the leading OpenBSC and Osmocom developers from the very early days of the project. Today we are responsible for by far the largest number of commits to the Osmocom GSM/3G infrastructure related git repositories. Among our current priorities are automatic testing for the GPRS PCU, generalization of the OsmoMGW media gateway, support for load-based hand-over, inter-BSC hand-over as well as various improvements on the lower layers of the GPRS protocol stack. We're very dedicated to the cause in furthering the capabilities of open source cellular infrastructure from 2G to 4G. We believe in working upstream, no open core or dual licensing. If you have an interest working with an enthusiastic, strong technical and dedicated team of Osmocom hackers, please don't hesitate to let me know, best by e-mail to jobs(a)sysmocom.de Thanks, Harald p.s.: I hope this kind of message is not disturbing to anyone. I think it is important to the Osmocom project to have more paid people working on the stack, so it is justified. The positions we are seeking to fill will work [almost exclusively] on Osmocom, so it's not a random job ad but in the very interest of Osmocom, and hence on-topic for this list. [1] https://www.sysmocom.de/jobs/ -- - Harald Welte <hwelte(a)sysmocom.de> http://www.sysmocom.de/ ======================================================================= * sysmocom - systems for mobile communications GmbH * Alt-Moabit 93 * 10559 Berlin, Germany * Sitz / Registered office: Berlin, HRB 134158 B * Geschaeftsfuehrer / Managing Director: Harald Welte

1 0

New "osmocom:latest" package feed
by Harald Welte 29 Oct '17

29 Oct '17

Dear Osmocom community, since the NITB-split has completed, and we have integrated 3G fully into master, and also merged nitb-split and nitb packages in one feed, the next step on the agenda was to create packages/feeds that are more stable than "nightly". After a long day of "release engineering" work and related fixes, starting from today, Osmocom not only has the "osmocom:nightly" feed tracking the "master of the day" of all repositories. We now also have a "osmocom:latest" feed for various Debian and Ubuntu GNU/Linux distributions which contains packages for the last tagged version of each source code repository. The setup is fairly similar to that of the "osmocom:nightly" packages and is described at https://osmocom.org/projects/cellular-infrastructure/wiki/Latest_Builds I've also removed all known references to Nightly_Builds on the wiki and replaced it with a reference to the new Binary_Packages page explaining the differences between Nightly_Builds and Latest_Builds: https://osmocom.org/projects/cellular-infrastructure/wiki/Binary_Packages As you can see at https://build.opensuse.org/project/monitor/network:osmocom:latest almost all the packages are building already. I intend to fix the remaining three (osmo-bsc, osmo-msc and osmo-pcu) shortly. -- - Harald Welte <hwelte(a)sysmocom.de> http://www.sysmocom.de/ ======================================================================= * sysmocom - systems for mobile communications GmbH * Alt-Moabit 93 * 10559 Berlin, Germany * Sitz / Registered office: Berlin, HRB 134158 B * Geschaeftsfuehrer / Managing Director: Harald Welte

1 0

libgtp: Users of gtpie_encaps() and gtpie_encaps2() ?
by Harald Welte 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

Dear all, during manual review, I found some pretty obvious bugs and inconsistencies in the gtpie_encaps() and gtpie_encaps2() functions of libgtp. Interestingly, it seems those functions have been around since the very fist commit in 2002. However, no code in openggsn, osmo-ggsn, osmo-sgsn or even gtphub seems to be using them. Does anyone know of any users of those functions? Rather than keeping them updated manually without any test cases and users, I would say there's a strong argument to remove them from the code base. Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

1 0

Planning for OsmoCon + OsmoDevCon
by Harald Welte 14 Oct '17

14 Oct '17

[cross-post to many lists, please follow-up-to openbsc(a)lists.osmocom.org] Dear all, time is flying, and I would like to start early with discussions and planning about OsmoCon and OsmoDevCon in 2018. It helps to start early. Side note: We have some pending issues about the events from last year at http://osmocom.org/projects/osmo-dev-con/issues - I've incorporated them in the text below. == OsmoDevCon == For OsmoDevCon, I think it's easy: We keep it as-is. Same procedure as every year, which means: * same venue, same catering options * same concept of 'anyone contributing to Osmocom can apply for registration until all seats are taken' * same idea of inviting some few speaker[s] doing other FOSS mobile communications work to join us The parts that we need to change, IMHO: * don't reduce from 4 to 3 days like last year. Have full 4 days again * sort topics per day / half-day, i.e. have "GSM/UMTS Cellular Infrastructure" days for BTS/BSC/NITB/MSC/HLR/SGSN/GGSN & Co, but then have other days for other projects. This would enable people not interested in the [continued evolvement] of the cellular projects be able to skip those days, or to simply meet in an adjacent room for parallel hacking sessions/discussions * try to be a bit more structured with the schedule in general. The existing approach works for people who attend all the event all day long, but not so well for people with other plans / limited time Any further change requests or topics to discuss? Please note that Pablo Neira has offered to kindly host an OsmoDevCon in Seville (Spain). I've attended a number of netfilter workshops he organized there, and he's doing a great job! However, given the large number of attendees from Berlin (and Germany in general), I think this would make things more complicated, and more expensive for most attendees. If you disagree with that assessment: I'm open for having the discussion, I just thought it's more practical/economic to do it in Berlin. === 10 year Anniversary Party === Given that 2018 marks the 10 year anniversary of Dieter and me hacking with the Siemens BS-11 in 2008, I think the 2018 incarnation deserves some special celebration of some form. I have no concrete idea yet, but for sure we should so something, and it should be at/around OsmoDevCon. And for sure we should have a BS-11 around :) == OsmoCon == The public OsmoCon was welcomed and was a success. However, let's start this discussion with a review of last years event. === Registration === * Registrations came in way too late. Two weeks ahead of the event, we were considering to cancel it. And then within the last few days, we had to turn people down due to limited seating capacity * To make planning more reliable, we see on other option but to significantly raise the registration fee combined with an equally significant discount for early booking === Duration === * Many people requested multiple days rather than just one, in order to make more out of (long distance) travels. This is obvious, but as we had no idea how many people would attend at all (or if we have to cancel due to lack of attendance), planning multiple days in the first incarnation would have been high risk and a multitude of work * I would suggest to expand to two or even three days this week, possibly one days with tutorials and the other day with tech talks * Slightly less crammed schedule due to multiple days === Venue === We recognize this yearso venue was not the best option, due to * Bad ventilation in the basemenet * Difficult to find * No space next to the conference room where people can meet / hang out in parallel to talks (not everyone attends every talk) I still like the "understatement" of the venue. I'd prefer any hostel / non-profit / hackerspace / university over luxurious hotels any time. Going to an expensive venue means more or less automatically more expensive ticket fees, which again is more likely to exclude pure community members without a commercial activity related to Osmocom. So any future venue would ideally: * be able to hold slightly more people than this year * have a second room or large lobby in which people can meet for extended coffee breaks in parallel to some talks, as needed * be slightly easier to find (and we have to put up some signs outside and in the lobby) * have better WiFi and/or wired connectivity === Programme / Format === * less crammed over multiple days * some more "interactive" formats were requested, for users to provide feedback to developers * there was some discussion about topics / speakers in redmine last year, but not too much participation [until it was too late]. * I'd suggest a more formal CfP process with a submission deadline that allows us to publish a preliminary schedule long ahead of the event === Video Recordings === I think they were a big success, and it was a very big surprise that the CCC Video Operations Center was volunteering to help such a small and niche-interest event like OsmoCon. We should make sure that we can repeat this for 2018. == Dates / Frequency == Having OsmoCon and OsmoDevCon back to back becomes somewhat long, if OsmoCon is 2-3 days and OsmoDevCon is 4 days. Basically we're looking at a full week for those of you who would like to attend both events. But then, I think the number of people attending both events is actually not all that big. Without checking the details, I think not more than half of the OsmoDevCon attendees were attending OsmoCon. I would expect that tendency to remain or even increase. I still think it's good to keep them back-to-back. In terms of frequency, I would actually suggest we move to a 6-month cycle rather than a 12-month cycle. There's a lot of development going on at all time. I understand that not everyone is able to attend two events just on Osmocom, especially if it's a spare time / hobby type activity. That's ok, I think there's no problem with attending either of the two only, and catching up by video recordings and/or mail on the other. The qeustion is: Should that second event be developer-oriented or user-oriented? Or again both? Any comments here? Ok, that was a somewhat lengthy e-mail. Please make sure to provide any feedback you may have as early as possible, to increase the chances of your feedback being reflected in the planning. Happy hacking, Harald -- - Harald Welte <laforge(a)gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)

1 0

Current osmo-pcu patch set
by Holger Freyther 05 Oct '17

05 Oct '17

Hi, I am a bit lost with the review of the current osmo-pcu patchset. Going through the patches I have difficulties to see the red thread and what is better after we integrate the changes. I guess the goal is to add the allocation of multiple uplink timeslots but from my point of view this is buried in a lot of subjective sideway development. My wish would be: For multiple slot UL allocation: Make the most direct patchset to implement this feature. I understand that to avoid code duplication some methods can be re-used but instead of having 10 patches that change int->bool, change signatures of functions, maybe make it minimal to see how it works first? After it works send a cover mail that explains what and why you took the approach, what the _speed_ improvement for browsing is or when it is being used. What you see the danger in terms of common ts and allocation. For the clean-ups: I don't say we shouldn't do them but we should do them in a way they don't take much time to review and still provide a net gain to the contributor. A "cosmetic" patch that breaks the build is very suspicious and forces a reviewer to look extra carefully into these "clean-ups". int->bool: I think int->bool and 1->true adds little value for an application but if it is important then please do it by semantic patching so they can be easily reviewed. bts->trx: I think there is little value to change a function signature from getting a BTS to a TRX when the implementation starts to do: - bts->list + trx->bts->list "API" documentation: Comments can be helpful and it is good to explain on a high level what a function will do and what the side-effects will be. But in an application I think writing: \param[in,out] bts Pointer to BTS struct adds not enough value. First it is wrong as the type is not "BTS" but it is the "C" gprs_rlcmac_bts. And second doxygen will perfectly tell you the type of of the parameter anyway. Documenting that -1 of a parameter has a specific semantic can have some advantage but the risk of code/doc not agreeing is there as well. libosmocore: We do have a desire for reuse but everytime you make osmo-pcu depend on a unreleased version of libosmocore rebuilding osmo-pcu get's more difficult and the compile error is not obvious. It is not clear where the macro is coming from. So please keep this in mind and try to find a balance. thank you for your consideration holger

4 5

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

osmocom-net-gprs October 2017