| Message ID | e4efa52c26ca5ae97c7e4e7570d8da9cd44df533.1712639568.git.tanggeliang@kylinos.cn (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Handled Elsewhere, archived |
| Delegated to: | Geliang Tang |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Two fixes for test_sockmap | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| matttbe/build | success | Build and static analysis OK |
| matttbe/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 17 lines checked |
| matttbe/shellcheck | success | MPTCP selftests files have not been modified |
| matttbe/KVM_Validation__normal | success | Success! ✅ |
| matttbe/KVM_Validation__debug | success | Success! ✅ |
| matttbe/KVM_Validation__btf__only_bpftest_all_ | success | Success! ✅ |
On 4/8/24 10:18 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 fail. > > Fixes: 16962b2404ac ("bpf: sockmap, add selftests") > Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@kylinos.cn> > Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@linux.dev> > --- > 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..4feed253fca2 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c > @@ -603,7 +603,9 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt, > struct timeval timeout; > fd_set w; > > - fcntl(fd, fd_flags); > + if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, fd_flags)) > + goto out_errno; > + > /* 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 +680,7 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt, > perror("recv failed()"); > goto out_errno; > } > + continue; From looking at it again, there is a select() earlier, so it should not hit EWOULDBLOCK. Patch 2 looks good. Only patch 2 is applied. Thanks. > } > > s->bytes_recvd += recv;
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c index 024a0faafb3b..4feed253fca2 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c @@ -603,7 +603,9 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt, struct timeval timeout; fd_set w; - fcntl(fd, fd_flags); + if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, fd_flags)) + goto out_errno; + /* 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 +680,7 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt, perror("recv failed()"); goto out_errno; } + continue; } s->bytes_recvd += recv;