linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/5] vsock/test: Introduce enable_so

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: <3uci6mlihjdst7iksimvsabnjggwpgskbhxz2262pmwdnrq3lx@v2dz7lsvpxew>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2025 16:41:34 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, 
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, 
	Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>, 
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 4/5] vsock/test: Introduce enable_so_linger()
 helper

On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 12:55:22AM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:
>Add a helper function that sets SO_LINGER. Adapt the caller.
>
>Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
>---
> tools/testing/vsock/util.c       | 13 +++++++++++++
> tools/testing/vsock/util.h       |  4 ++++
> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 10 +---------
> 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/util.c b/tools/testing/vsock/util.c
>index 120277be14ab2f58e0350adcdd56fc18861399c9..41b47f7deadcda68fddc2b22a6d9bb7847cc0a14 100644
>--- a/tools/testing/vsock/util.c
>+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/util.c
>@@ -823,3 +823,16 @@ void enable_so_zerocopy_check(int fd)
> 	setsockopt_int_check(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ZEROCOPY, 1,
> 			     "setsockopt SO_ZEROCOPY");
> }
>+
>+void enable_so_linger(int fd)
>+{
>+	struct linger optval = {
>+		.l_onoff = 1,
>+		.l_linger = LINGER_TIMEOUT
>+	};
>+
>+	if (setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_LINGER, &optval, sizeof(optval))) {
>+		perror("setsockopt(SO_LINGER)");
>+		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+	}
>+}
>diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/util.h b/tools/testing/vsock/util.h
>index e307f0d4f6940e984b84a95fd0d57598e7c4e35f..1b3d8eb2c4b3c41c9007584177455c4fa442334c 100644
>--- a/tools/testing/vsock/util.h
>+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/util.h
>@@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ enum test_mode {
>
> #define DEFAULT_PEER_PORT	1234
>
>+/* Half of the default to not risk timing out the control channel */
>+#define LINGER_TIMEOUT		(TIMEOUT / 2)
>+
> /* Test runner options */
> struct test_opts {
> 	enum test_mode mode;
>@@ -80,4 +83,5 @@ void setsockopt_int_check(int fd, int level, int optname, int val,
> void setsockopt_timeval_check(int fd, int level, int optname,
> 			      struct timeval val, char const *errmsg);
> void enable_so_zerocopy_check(int fd);
>+void enable_so_linger(int fd);
> #endif /* UTIL_H */
>diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>index 4c2c94151070d54d1ed6e6af5a6de0b262a0206e..f401c6a79495bc7fda97012e5bfeabec7dbfb60a 100644
>--- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>@@ -1813,10 +1813,6 @@ static void test_stream_connect_retry_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
>
> static void test_stream_linger_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
> {
>-	struct linger optval = {
>-		.l_onoff = 1,
>-		.l_linger = 1

So, we are changing the timeout from 1 to 5, right?
Should we mention in the commit description?

>-	};
> 	int fd;
>
> 	fd = vsock_stream_connect(opts->peer_cid, opts->peer_port);
>@@ -1825,11 +1821,7 @@ static void test_stream_linger_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
> 		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> 	}
>
>-	if (setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_LINGER, &optval, sizeof(optval))) {
>-		perror("setsockopt(SO_LINGER)");
>-		exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>-	}
>-
>+	enable_so_linger(fd);

If you need to resend, I'd pass the timeout as parameter, so the test
can use whatever they want.

The rest LGTM.

Thanks,
Stefano

> 	close(fd);
> }
>
>
>-- 
>2.49.0
>