On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 10:15:47AM +0800, Xuewei Niu wrote:
On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 03:06:49PM +0800, Xuewei Niu wrote:
>This patch adds two tests for ioctl SIOCINQ for SOCK_STREAM and
>SOCK_SEQPACKET. The client waits for the server to send data, and checks if
>the return value of the SIOCINQ is the size of the data. Then, consumes the
>data and checks if the value is 0.

We recently fixed the SIOCOUTQ test, see:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=7fd7ad6f36af36f30a06d165eff3780cb139fa79

Should we do the same here?

Yeah! Indeed, we have recognized this issue before. I think it is better to
wrap this ioctl operation in a function in "tools/testing/vsock/util.c" and
make it reusable.

Yep, if that helps to reduce code duplication, it's fine.

Thanks,
Stefano


Will do.

>
>Signed-off-by: Xuewei Niu <niuxuewei....@antgroup.com>
>---
> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 102 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c 
b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>index d0f6d253ac72..8b3fb88e2877 100644
>--- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>@@ -1282,6 +1282,78 @@ static void test_unsent_bytes_client(const struct 
test_opts *opts, int type)
>    close(fd);
> }
>
>+static void test_unread_bytes_server(const struct test_opts *opts, int type)
>+{
>+   unsigned char buf[MSG_BUF_IOCTL_LEN];
>+   int client_fd;
>+
>+   client_fd = vsock_accept(VMADDR_CID_ANY, opts->peer_port, NULL, type);
>+   if (client_fd < 0) {
>+           perror("accept");
>+           exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+   }
>+
>+   for (int i = 0; i < sizeof(buf); i++)
>+           buf[i] = rand() & 0xFF;
>+
>+   send_buf(client_fd, buf, sizeof(buf), 0, sizeof(buf));
>+   control_writeln("SENT");
>+   control_expectln("RECEIVED");
>+
>+   close(client_fd);
>+}
>+
>+static void test_unread_bytes_client(const struct test_opts *opts, int type)
>+{
>+   unsigned char buf[MSG_BUF_IOCTL_LEN];
>+   int ret, fd;
>+   int sock_bytes_unread;
>+
>+   fd = vsock_connect(opts->peer_cid, opts->peer_port, type);
>+   if (fd < 0) {
>+           perror("connect");
>+           exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+   }
>+
>+   control_expectln("SENT");
>+   // The data have come in but is not read, the expected value is
>+   // MSG_BUF_IOCTL_LEN.
>+   ret = ioctl(fd, SIOCINQ, &sock_bytes_unread);
>+   if (ret < 0) {
>+           if (errno == EOPNOTSUPP) {
>+                   fprintf(stderr,
>+                           "Test skipped, SIOCINQ not supported.\n");
>+                   goto out;
>+           } else {
>+                   perror("ioctl");
>+                   exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+           }
>+   } else if (ret == 0 && sock_bytes_unread != MSG_BUF_IOCTL_LEN) {
>+           fprintf(stderr,
>+                   "Unexpected 'SIOCOUTQ' value, expected %d, got %i\n",
>+                   MSG_BUF_IOCTL_LEN, sock_bytes_unread);
>+           exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+   }
>+
>+   recv_buf(fd, buf, sizeof(buf), 0, sizeof(buf));
>+   // The data is consumed, so the expected is 0.
>+   ret = ioctl(fd, SIOCINQ, &sock_bytes_unread);
>+   if (ret < 0) {
>+           // Don't ignore EOPNOTSUPP since we have already checked it!
>+           perror("ioctl");
>+           exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+   } else if (ret == 0 && sock_bytes_unread != 0) {
>+           fprintf(stderr,
>+                   "Unexpected 'SIOCOUTQ' value, expected 0, got %i\n",
>+                   sock_bytes_unread);
>+           exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>+   }
>+   control_writeln("RECEIVED");
>+
>+out:
>+   close(fd);
>+}
>+
> static void test_stream_unsent_bytes_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
> {
>    test_unsent_bytes_client(opts, SOCK_STREAM);
>@@ -1302,6 +1374,26 @@ static void test_seqpacket_unsent_bytes_server(const 
struct test_opts *opts)
>    test_unsent_bytes_server(opts, SOCK_SEQPACKET);
> }
>
>+static void test_stream_unread_bytes_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
>+{
>+   test_unread_bytes_client(opts, SOCK_STREAM);
>+}
>+
>+static void test_stream_unread_bytes_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
>+{
>+   test_unread_bytes_server(opts, SOCK_STREAM);
>+}
>+
>+static void test_seqpacket_unread_bytes_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
>+{
>+   test_unread_bytes_client(opts, SOCK_SEQPACKET);
>+}
>+
>+static void test_seqpacket_unread_bytes_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
>+{
>+   test_unread_bytes_server(opts, SOCK_SEQPACKET);
>+}
>+
> #define RCVLOWAT_CREDIT_UPD_BUF_SIZE       (1024 * 128)
> /* This define is the same as in 'include/linux/virtio_vsock.h':
>  * it is used to decide when to send credit update message during
>@@ -1954,6 +2046,16 @@ static struct test_case test_cases[] = {
>            .run_client = test_seqpacket_unsent_bytes_client,
>            .run_server = test_seqpacket_unsent_bytes_server,
>    },
>+   {
>+           .name = "SOCK_STREAM ioctl(SIOCINQ) functionality",
>+           .run_client = test_stream_unread_bytes_client,
>+           .run_server = test_stream_unread_bytes_server,
>+   },
>+   {
>+           .name = "SOCK_SEQPACKET ioctl(SIOCINQ) functionality",
>+           .run_client = test_seqpacket_unread_bytes_client,
>+           .run_server = test_seqpacket_unread_bytes_server,
>+   },

Please, append new test at the end, so we will not change test IDs.

Thanks,
Stefano

Will do.

Thanks,
Xuewei

>    {
>            .name = "SOCK_STREAM leak accept queue",
>            .run_client = test_stream_leak_acceptq_client,
>--
>2.34.1
>



Reply via email to