[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250324182602.47871-1-kuniyu@amazon.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:25:20 -0700
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
To: <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
CC: <davem@...emloft.net>, <dsahern@...nel.org>, <edumazet@...gle.com>,
<horms@...nel.org>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <kuni1840@...il.com>,
<kuniyu@...zon.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <pabeni@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net 3/3] selftest: net: Check wraparounds for sk->sk_rmem_alloc.
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 11:58:06 -0400
> > +TEST_F(so_rcvbuf, rmem_max)
> > +{
> > + char buf[16] = {};
> > + int ret, i;
> > +
> > + create_socketpair(_metadata, self, variant);
> > +
> > + ret = setsockopt(self->server, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUFFORCE,
> > + &(int){INT_MAX}, sizeof(int));
> > + ASSERT_EQ(ret, 0);
> > +
> > + ASSERT_EQ(get_prot_pages(_metadata, variant), 0);
> > +
> > + for (i = 1; ; i++) {
> > + ret = send(self->client, buf, sizeof(buf), 0);
> > + ASSERT_EQ(ret, sizeof(buf));
> > +
> > + if (i % 10000 == 0) {
> > + int pages = get_prot_pages(_metadata, variant);
> > +
> > + /* sk_rmem_alloc wrapped around too much ? */
> > + ASSERT_LE(pages, *variant->max_pages);
> > +
> > + if (pages == *variant->max_pages)
> > + break;
>
> Does correctness depend here on max_pages being a multiple of 10K?
10K may be too conservative, but at least we need to ensure
that the size of accumulated skbs exceeds 1 PAGE_SIZE to
fail on the ASSERT_LE(), otherwise we can't detect the multiple
wraparounds even without patch 1.
The later sleep for call_rcu() was dominant than this loop on
my machine.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists