[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220317080708.duovh4tnf6oxhciq@sgarzare-redhat>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 09:07:08 +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: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] af_vsock: SOCK_SEQPACKET receive timeout
test
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 05:26:45AM +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: Krasnov Arseniy Vladimirovich <AVKrasnov@...rdevices.ru>
>---
> v2 -> v3:
> 1) Use 'fprintf()' instead of 'perror()' where 'errno' variable
> is not affected.
> 2) Print 'read()' overhead.
>
> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>index 2a3638c0a008..f5498de6751d 100644
>--- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/socket.h>
>+#include <time.h>
>
> #include "timeout.h"
> #include "control.h"
>@@ -391,6 +392,84 @@ static void test_seqpacket_msg_trunc_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
> close(fd);
> }
>
>+static time_t current_nsec(void)
>+{
>+ struct timespec ts;
>+
>+ if (clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts)) {
>+ perror("clock_gettime(3) failed");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ return (ts.tv_sec * 1000000000ULL) + ts.tv_nsec;
>+}
>+
>+#define RCVTIMEO_TIMEOUT_SEC 1
>+#define READ_OVERHEAD_NSEC 250000000 /* 0.25 sec */
>+
>+static void test_seqpacket_timeout_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
>+{
>+ int fd;
>+ struct timeval tv;
>+ char dummy;
>+ time_t read_enter_ns;
>+ time_t read_overhead_ns;
>+
>+ fd = vsock_seqpacket_connect(opts->peer_cid, 1234);
>+ if (fd < 0) {
>+ perror("connect");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ tv.tv_sec = RCVTIMEO_TIMEOUT_SEC;
>+ tv.tv_usec = 0;
>+
>+ if (setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, (void *)&tv, sizeof(tv)) == -1) {
>+ perror("setsockopt 'SO_RCVTIMEO'");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ read_enter_ns = current_nsec();
>+
>+ if (errno != EAGAIN) {
>+ perror("EAGAIN expected");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
Should this check go after read()?
Indeed now the test fails on my environment with "EAGAIN expected"
message.
The rest LGTM :-)
Stefano
>+
>+ if (read(fd, &dummy, sizeof(dummy)) != -1) {
>+ fprintf(stderr,
>+ "expected 'dummy' read(2) failure\n");
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ read_overhead_ns = current_nsec() - read_enter_ns -
>+ 1000000000ULL * RCVTIMEO_TIMEOUT_SEC;
>+
>+ if (read_overhead_ns > READ_OVERHEAD_NSEC) {
>+ fprintf(stderr,
>+ "too much time in read(2), %lu > %i ns\n",
>+ read_overhead_ns, READ_OVERHEAD_NSEC);
>+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+ }
>+
>+ control_writeln("WAITDONE");
>+ close(fd);
>+}
>+
>+static void test_seqpacket_timeout_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("WAITDONE");
>+ close(fd);
>+}
>+
> static struct test_case test_cases[] = {
> {
> .name = "SOCK_STREAM connection reset",
>@@ -431,6 +510,11 @@ static struct test_case test_cases[] = {
> .run_client = test_seqpacket_msg_trunc_client,
> .run_server = test_seqpacket_msg_trunc_server,
> },
>+ {
>+ .name = "SOCK_SEQPACKET timeout",
>+ .run_client = test_seqpacket_timeout_client,
>+ .run_server = test_seqpacket_timeout_server,
>+ },
> {},
> };
>
>--
>2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists