linux-kernel - [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] vsock/test: retry send() to avoid occasional failure in sigpipe test

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250514141927.159456-3-sgarzare@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2025 16:19:26 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
	Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] vsock/test: retry send() to avoid occasional failure in sigpipe test

From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>

When the other peer calls shutdown(SHUT_RD), there is a chance that
the send() call could occur before the message carrying the close
information arrives over the transport. In such cases, the send()
might still succeed. To avoid this race, let's retry the send() call
a few times, ensuring the test is more reliable.

Sleep a little before trying again to avoid flooding the other peer
and filling its receive buffer, causing false-negative.

Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
---
v2:
- add little sleep [Paolo]
---
 tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
index d0f6d253ac72..68f425af00cc 100644
--- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
@@ -1058,17 +1058,34 @@ static void sigpipe(int signo)
 	have_sigpipe = 1;
 }
 
+#define SEND_SLEEP_USEC (10 * 1000)
+
 static void test_stream_check_sigpipe(int fd)
 {
 	ssize_t res;
 
 	have_sigpipe = 0;
 
-	res = send(fd, "A", 1, 0);
-	if (res != -1) {
-		fprintf(stderr, "expected send(2) failure, got %zi\n", res);
-		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+	/* When the other peer calls shutdown(SHUT_RD), there is a chance that
+	 * the send() call could occur before the message carrying the close
+	 * information arrives over the transport. In such cases, the send()
+	 * might still succeed. To avoid this race, let's retry the send() call
+	 * a few times, ensuring the test is more reliable.
+	 */
+	timeout_begin(TIMEOUT);
+	while(1) {
+		res = send(fd, "A", 1, 0);
+		if (res == -1)
+			break;
+
+		/* Sleep a little before trying again to avoid flooding the
+		 * other peer and filling its receive buffer, causing
+		 * false-negative.
+		 */
+		timeout_usleep(SEND_SLEEP_USEC);
+		timeout_check("send");
 	}
+	timeout_end();
 
 	if (!have_sigpipe) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "SIGPIPE expected\n");
@@ -1077,11 +1094,16 @@ static void test_stream_check_sigpipe(int fd)
 
 	have_sigpipe = 0;
 
-	res = send(fd, "A", 1, MSG_NOSIGNAL);
-	if (res != -1) {
-		fprintf(stderr, "expected send(2) failure, got %zi\n", res);
-		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+	timeout_begin(TIMEOUT);
+	while(1) {
+		res = send(fd, "A", 1, MSG_NOSIGNAL);
+		if (res == -1)
+			break;
+
+		timeout_usleep(SEND_SLEEP_USEC);
+		timeout_check("send");
 	}
+	timeout_end();
 
 	if (have_sigpipe) {
 		fprintf(stderr, "SIGPIPE not expected\n");
-- 
2.49.0