On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 08:40:22PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
On 12/24/25 10:15, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 09:38:07PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
On 12/23/25 17:50, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 02:20:33PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 12:10:25PM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
On 12/23/25 11:27, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 10:15:29AM +0100, Michal Luczaj wrote:
Make sure setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET, SO_ZEROCOPY) on an accept()ed socket is
handled by vsock's implementation.
Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
index 9e1250790f33..8ec8f0844e22 100644
--- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
@@ -2192,6 +2192,34 @@ static void test_stream_nolinger_server(const struct
test_opts *opts)
close(fd);
}
+static void test_stream_accepted_setsockopt_client(const struct test_opts
*opts)
+{
+ int fd;
+
+ fd = vsock_stream_connect(opts->peer_cid, opts->peer_port);
+ if (fd < 0) {
+ perror("connect");
+ exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+ }
+
+ vsock_wait_remote_close(fd);
On a second look, why we need to wait the remote close?
can we just have a control message?
I think we can. I've used vsock_wait_remote_close() simply as a sync
primitive. It's one line of code less.
I'm not sure even on that, I mean why this peer can't close the
connection while the other is checking if it's able to set zerocopy?
I was worried that without any sync, client-side close() may race
server-side accept(), but I've just checked and it doesn't seem to cause
any issues, at least for the virtio transports.
Okay, I see. Feel free to leave it, but if it's not really needed, I'd
prefer to keep the tests as simple as possible.
OK, dropping the sync here. It will be interesting to see if it ever blows up.
...
In my suite, I'm checking the client, and if the last test fails only
on the server, I'm missing it. I'd fix my suite, and maybe also
vsock_test adding another sync point.
Added a full barrier here:
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]
Which reminds me of discussion in
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/
Oh, I forgot that we already discussed that.
My first attempt was exactly that, but then discovered that it didn't
add too much except for the last one since for the others we have 2 full
barriers back to back, so I preferred to move outside the loop. In that
way we can also be sure the 2 `vsock_tests` are in sync with the amount
of tests to run.
Might it be that we're solving different issues?
I was annoyed by the next test's name/prompt being printed when the
previous test is still running on the other side. Which happens e.g. when
one side takes longer than the other. Or when one of the sides is
unimplemented.
I don't see this that bad, because this will show us exactly what is
going on. One peer did everything well in its test function and it's
ready to start the next test, while the other is having some kind of
trouble at the end of the test.
If a test really want to be sure that one peer should wait the other
(for some reason), should explicitly set a sync point like we already do
in some cases.
How about something like below; would that cover your case as well?
diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/util.c b/tools/testing/vsock/util.c
index d843643ced6b..5d94ffd2fa82 100644
--- a/tools/testing/vsock/util.c
+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/util.c
@@ -495,7 +495,7 @@ void run_tests(const struct test_case *test_cases,
printf("skipped\n");
free(line);
- continue;
+ goto sync;
}
control_cmpln(line, "NEXT", true);
@@ -510,6 +510,9 @@ void run_tests(const struct test_case *test_cases,
run(opts);
printf("ok\n");
+sync:
+ control_writeln("RUN_TESTS_SYNC");
+ control_expectln("RUN_TESTS_SYNC");
}
}
This was my first attempt, but except for the first test, we have
essentially 2 full barrier back to back, that IMO is not really great.
BTW I think it's better to continue that discussion on
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/[email protected]/
Thanks,
Stefano
