netdev - [PATCH net] selftests: tls: make the new data

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250814194323.2014650-1-kuba@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 12:43:23 -0700
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: davem@...emloft.net
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	edumazet@...gle.com,
	pabeni@...hat.com,
	andrew+netdev@...n.ch,
	horms@...nel.org,
	shuah@...nel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net] selftests: tls: make the new data_steal test less flaky

The CI has hit a couple of cases of:

  RUN           global.data_steal ...
 tls.c:2762:data_steal:Expected recv(cfd, buf2, sizeof(buf2), MSG_DONTWAIT) (20000) == -1 (-1)
 data_steal: Test terminated by timeout
          FAIL  global.data_steal

Looks like the 2msec sleep is not long enough. Make the sleep longer,
and then instead of second sleep wait for the thieving process to exit.
That way we can be sure it called recv() before us.

While at it also avoid trying to steal more than a record, this seems
to be causing issues in manual testing as well.

Fixes: d7e82594a45c ("selftests: tls: test TCP stealing data from under the TLS socket")
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c | 12 +++++-------
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
index dd82e198d21f..8df86ca630e0 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/tls.c
@@ -2875,17 +2875,18 @@ TEST(data_steal) {
 	pid = fork();
 	ASSERT_GE(pid, 0);
 	if (!pid) {
-		EXPECT_EQ(recv(cfd, buf, sizeof(buf), MSG_WAITALL),
-			  sizeof(buf));
+		EXPECT_EQ(recv(cfd, buf, sizeof(buf) / 2, MSG_WAITALL),
+			  sizeof(buf) / 2);
 		exit(!__test_passed(_metadata));
 	}
 
-	usleep(2000);
+	usleep(10000);
 	ASSERT_EQ(setsockopt(fd, SOL_TLS, TLS_TX, &tls, tls.len), 0);
 	ASSERT_EQ(setsockopt(cfd, SOL_TLS, TLS_RX, &tls, tls.len), 0);
 
 	EXPECT_EQ(send(fd, buf, sizeof(buf), 0), sizeof(buf));
-	usleep(2000);
+	EXPECT_EQ(wait(&status), pid);
+	EXPECT_EQ(status, 0);
 	EXPECT_EQ(recv(cfd, buf2, sizeof(buf2), MSG_DONTWAIT), -1);
 	/* Don't check errno, the error will be different depending
 	 * on what random bytes TLS interpreted as the record length.
@@ -2893,9 +2894,6 @@ TEST(data_steal) {
 
 	close(fd);
 	close(cfd);
-
-	EXPECT_EQ(wait(&status), pid);
-	EXPECT_EQ(status, 0);
 }
 
 static void __attribute__((constructor)) fips_check(void) {
-- 
2.50.1