[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221121145248.cmscv5vg3fir543x@sgarzare-redhat>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 15:52:48 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Arseniy Krasnov <AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
kernel <kernel@...rdevices.ru>,
Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@...il.com>,
Krasnov Arseniy <oxffffaa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] test/vsock: add big message test
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 08:52:35PM +0000, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>This adds test for sending message, bigger than peer's buffer size.
>For SOCK_SEQPACKET socket it must fail, as this type of socket has
>message size limit.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
>---
> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>index 107c11165887..bb4e8657f1d6 100644
>--- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>@@ -560,6 +560,63 @@ static void test_seqpacket_timeout_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
> close(fd);
> }
>
>+static void test_seqpacket_bigmsg_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
>+{
>+ unsigned long sock_buf_size;
>+ ssize_t send_size;
>+ socklen_t len;
>+ void *data;
>+ int fd;
>+
>+ len = sizeof(sock_buf_size);
>+
>+ fd = vsock_seqpacket_connect(opts->peer_cid, 1234);
Not for this patch, but someday we should add a macro for this port and
maybe even make it configurable :-)
>+ if (fd < 0) {
>+ perror("connect");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ if (getsockopt(fd, AF_VSOCK, SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE,
>+ &sock_buf_size, &len)) {
>+ perror("getsockopt");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ sock_buf_size++;
>+
>+ data = malloc(sock_buf_size);
>+ if (!data) {
>+ perror("malloc");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ send_size = send(fd, data, sock_buf_size, 0);
>+ if (send_size != -1) {
Can we check also `errno`?
IIUC it should contains EMSGSIZE.
>+ fprintf(stderr, "expected 'send(2)' failure, got %zi\n",
>+ send_size);
>+ }
>+
>+ control_writeln("CLISENT");
>+
>+ free(data);
>+ close(fd);
>+}
>+
>+static void test_seqpacket_bigmsg_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
>+{
>+ int fd;
>+
>+ fd = vsock_seqpacket_accept(VMADDR_CID_ANY, 1234, NULL);
>+ if (fd < 0) {
>+ perror("accept");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ control_expectln("CLISENT");
>+
>+ close(fd);
>+}
>+
> #define BUF_PATTERN_1 'a'
> #define BUF_PATTERN_2 'b'
>
>@@ -832,6 +889,11 @@ static struct test_case test_cases[] = {
> .run_client = test_seqpacket_timeout_client,
> .run_server = test_seqpacket_timeout_server,
> },
>+ {
>+ .name = "SOCK_SEQPACKET big message",
>+ .run_client = test_seqpacket_bigmsg_client,
>+ .run_server = test_seqpacket_bigmsg_server,
>+ },
I would add new tests always at the end, so if some CI uses --skip, we
don't have to update the scripts to skip some tests.
> {
> .name = "SOCK_SEQPACKET invalid receive buffer",
> .run_client = test_seqpacket_invalid_rec_buffer_client,
>--
>2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists