[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220315081517.m7rvlpintqipdu6i@sgarzare-redhat>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2022 09:15:17 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Krasnov Arseniy Vladimirovich <AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
Cc: Krasnov Arseniy <oxffffaa@...il.com>,
Rokosov Dmitry Dmitrievich <DDRokosov@...rdevices.ru>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] af_vsock: SOCK_SEQPACKET receive timeout test
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:55:42AM +0000, Krasnov Arseniy Vladimirovich wrote:
>Test for receive timeout check: connection is established,
>receiver sets timeout, but sender does nothing. Receiver's
>'read()' call must return EAGAIN.
>
>Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
>---
> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>index 2a3638c0a008..aa2de27d0f77 100644
>--- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>@@ -391,6 +391,50 @@ static void test_seqpacket_msg_trunc_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
> close(fd);
> }
>
>+static void test_seqpacket_timeout_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
>+{
>+ int fd;
>+ struct timeval tv;
>+ char dummy;
>+
>+ fd = vsock_seqpacket_connect(opts->peer_cid, 1234);
>+ if (fd < 0) {
>+ perror("connect");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ tv.tv_sec = 1;
>+ tv.tv_usec = 0;
>+
>+ if (setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, (void *)&tv, sizeof(tv)) == -1) {
>+ perror("setsockopt 'SO_RCVTIMEO'");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ if ((read(fd, &dummy, sizeof(dummy)) != -1) ||
>+ (errno != EAGAIN)) {
>+ perror("EAGAIN expected");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
The patch LGTM, maybe the only thing I would add here is a check on the
time spent in the read(), to see that it is approximately the timeout we
have set.
Thanks,
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists