diff mbox series

[bpf-next,v3,1/2] selftests/bpf: Add F_SETFL for fcntl in test_sockmap

Message ID 2f9f84be1366ca68b1123dd2f3fd06034e1bd3a4.1712539403.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: BPF
Headers show
Series Add F_SETFL for fcntl | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR success PR summary
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 success Logs for ShellCheck
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-0 success Logs for Lint
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 success Logs for Unittests
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 success Logs for Validate matrix.py
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build-release
netdev/series_format success Posting correctly formatted
netdev/tree_selection success Clearly marked for bpf-next
netdev/ynl success Generated files up to date; no warnings/errors; no diff in generated;
netdev/fixes_present success Fixes tag not required for -next series
netdev/header_inline success No static functions without inline keyword in header files
netdev/build_32bit success Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8
netdev/build_tools success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/cc_maintainers warning 1 maintainers not CCed: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
netdev/build_clang success Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8
netdev/verify_signedoff success Signed-off-by tag matches author and committer
netdev/deprecated_api success None detected
netdev/check_selftest success No net selftest shell script
netdev/verify_fixes success Fixes tag looks correct
netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn success Errors and warnings before: 8 this patch: 8
netdev/checkpatch success total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 17 lines checked
netdev/build_clang_rust success No Rust files in patch. Skipping build
netdev/kdoc success Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0
netdev/source_inline success Was 0 now: 0
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build / build for s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 success Logs for s390x-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / build / build for aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 success Logs for set-matrix
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 success Logs for s390x-gcc / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build-release
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / build / build for x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-17 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-41 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-33 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_verifier, false, 360) / test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-36 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build-release / build for x86_64 with llvm-18 and -O2 optimization
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-34 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-30 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-35 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / build / build for x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-42 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / veristat
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-37 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_maps, false, 360) / test_maps on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-32 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-40 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32_parallel, true, 30) / test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-39 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs_cpuv4, false, 360) / test_progs_cpuv4 on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-31 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-17 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-17
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-38 success Logs for x86_64-llvm-18 / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-18
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 success Logs for x86_64-gcc / veristat / veristat on x86_64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 success Logs for aarch64-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs, false, 360) / test_progs on s390x with gcc
bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 success Logs for s390x-gcc / test (test_progs_no_alu32, false, 360) / test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc

Commit Message

Geliang Tang April 8, 2024, 1:36 a.m. UTC 
From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>

Incorrect arguments are passed to fcntl() in test_sockmap.c when invoking
it to set file status flags. If O_NONBLOCK is used as 2nd argument and
passed into fcntl, -EINVAL will be returned (See do_fcntl() in fs/fcntl.c).
The correct approach is to use F_SETFL as 2nd argument, and O_NONBLOCK as
3rd one.

In nonblock mode, if EWOULDBLOCK is received, continue receiving, otherwise
some subtests of test_sockmap will fail.

Fixes: 16962b2404ac ("bpf: sockmap, add selftests")
Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Yonghong Song April 8, 2024, 3:55 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 4/7/24 6:36 PM, Geliang Tang wrote:
> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
>
> Incorrect arguments are passed to fcntl() in test_sockmap.c when invoking
> it to set file status flags. If O_NONBLOCK is used as 2nd argument and
> passed into fcntl, -EINVAL will be returned (See do_fcntl() in fs/fcntl.c).
> The correct approach is to use F_SETFL as 2nd argument, and O_NONBLOCK as
> 3rd one.
>
> In nonblock mode, if EWOULDBLOCK is received, continue receiving, otherwise
> some subtests of test_sockmap will fail.
>
> Fixes: 16962b2404ac ("bpf: sockmap, add selftests")
> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>

Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev>
Martin KaFai Lau April 8, 2024, 11:24 p.m. UTC | #2 
On 4/7/24 6:36 PM, Geliang Tang wrote:
> From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> 
> Incorrect arguments are passed to fcntl() in test_sockmap.c when invoking
> it to set file status flags. If O_NONBLOCK is used as 2nd argument and
> passed into fcntl, -EINVAL will be returned (See do_fcntl() in fs/fcntl.c).
> The correct approach is to use F_SETFL as 2nd argument, and O_NONBLOCK as
> 3rd one.
> 
> In nonblock mode, if EWOULDBLOCK is received, continue receiving, otherwise
> some subtests of test_sockmap will fail.
> 
> Fixes: 16962b2404ac ("bpf: sockmap, add selftests")
> Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn>
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 5 ++++-
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
> index 024a0faafb3b..4f32a5eb3864 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
> @@ -603,7 +603,7 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt,
>   		struct timeval timeout;
>   		fd_set w;
>   
> -		fcntl(fd, fd_flags);
> +		fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, fd_flags);

Should it just error out here if fcntl did fail (unlikely?) ...

>   		/* Account for pop bytes noting each iteration of apply will
>   		 * call msg_pop_data helper so we need to account for this
>   		 * by calculating the number of apply iterations. Note user
> @@ -678,6 +678,9 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt,
>   					perror("recv failed()");
>   					goto out_errno;
>   				}
> +				fd_flags = fcntl(fd, F_GETFL);
> +				if (fd_flags & O_NONBLOCK)

... then no need to test fd_flags here?

pw-bot: cr

> +					continue;
>   			}
>   
>   			s->bytes_recvd += recv;
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
index 024a0faafb3b..4f32a5eb3864 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
@@ -603,7 +603,7 @@  static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt,
 		struct timeval timeout;
 		fd_set w;
 
-		fcntl(fd, fd_flags);
+		fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, fd_flags);
 		/* Account for pop bytes noting each iteration of apply will
 		 * call msg_pop_data helper so we need to account for this
 		 * by calculating the number of apply iterations. Note user
@@ -678,6 +678,9 @@  static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt,
 					perror("recv failed()");
 					goto out_errno;
 				}
+				fd_flags = fcntl(fd, F_GETFL);
+				if (fd_flags & O_NONBLOCK)
+					continue;
 			}
 
 			s->bytes_recvd += recv;