On Sun, Nov 23, 2025 at 10:46:22PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
On 11/21/25 10:21, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 10:12:20PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
On 11/19/25 20:52, Michal Luczaj wrote:
...
To follow up, should I add a version of syzkaller's lockdep warning repro
to vsock test suite? In theory it could test this fix here as well, but in
practice the race window is small and hitting it (the brute way) takes
prohibitively long.
Replying to self to add more data.
After reverting
f7c877e75352 ("vsock: fix lock inversion in vsock_assign_transport()")
002541ef650b ("vsock: Ignore signal/timeout on connect() if already
established")
adding
--- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
@@ -2014,6 +2014,7 @@ static void test_stream_transport_change_client(const
struct test_opts *opts)
perror("socket");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
+ enable_so_linger(s, 1);
ret = connect(s, (struct sockaddr *)&sa, sizeof(sa));
/* The connect can fail due to signals coming from the
is enough for vsock_test to trigger the lockdep warning syzkaller found.
cool, so if it's only that, maybe is worth adding.
Ok, there it is:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20251123-vsock_test-linger-lockdep-warn-v1-1-4b1edf9d8...@rbox.co/
Great!
And circling back to [1], let me know if you think it's worth adding to the
suit. I guess it would test the case #2 from [2], but it'd take another 2s
If you think it is better to put them in vsock tests, instead of bpf,
it's fine by me. 2s more is okay IMO.
and would require both h2g and non-h2g transports enabled.
This should be fine, IIRC we recently added something to check
transports and print warninng or skip tests in that cases.
Thanks,
Stefano
[1]:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/fjy4jaww6xualdudevfuyoavnrbu45cg4d7erv4rttde363xfc@nahglijbl2eg/
[2]:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/
