From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FE00C33CA9 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:58:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0BE520678 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:58:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.com header.i=@cloudflare.com header.b="AN4P9S1M" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728688AbgAMP6I (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:58:08 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com ([209.85.128.66]:50527 "EHLO mail-wm1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728650AbgAMP6I (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Jan 2020 10:58:08 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id a5so10294854wmb.0 for ; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 07:58:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cloudflare.com; s=google; h=references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=xuRv0bRrZmLh6/KELpV2UKLTZadCivbQ3Y3zds4jbws=; b=AN4P9S1MEvCGhshm0bKq0thZhjv2gvMxMBZrDoEgsisEZ2flIj6aZzLv302CT04ph+ jEvx0tzMPNyWl6DEI/M6laHazcY0ewVcjRNMmwDMEa6f5St2+Ma0SuNAss+nq+X3Of1v BpBGjszCtDAEZw+4tqBZEfJXedXJdokeSaAbo= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:references:user-agent:from:to:cc:subject :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=xuRv0bRrZmLh6/KELpV2UKLTZadCivbQ3Y3zds4jbws=; b=rrd2xkioUUCNt/2jc/yWHiAXwwevtNe+KK7QsUBOeGdZG+XdqQEOdM26EdxRQLhbxS qxV/Y7fAQMdZDR7v1LaDeMKMtZ42dgtlzv9FwfVSE5YScZ6dbxrYle7Z8gN3qDeop7vX Xip+wNy9asGKGbDEFDDD5shh8q0Tozf8Z2RywMWNv0YfvkuQh8BSjxFjzDvrDEGbqMOo FPewhpaKILS1fQN8W4cBNUrC1qTdhT3n5ol4VDq4T557I/mC+hQqsNukKHhlmo0svNSH wiiE51RFwegN3hdBwj5OFa0+us2mXyB6OLnOYG9Ad44JryvVxUqcyk8/W4HJc0Vmunfp uJEA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXdRnOkeOdQ1WZWBPx6bbyjwOK5lv0qHAoTuOAHRQSAotMjB3Vt SzIaxuiyJoilXJQkipm2sKuX0Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzwCReOQ51CvyOqs+7XHhS1CAjcUa5dNI+iCe5BDXxMdXmpmssCSh1KzNa9RULQ5OI0izxFhg== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:dcd5:: with SMTP id t204mr21980385wmg.34.1578931086453; Mon, 13 Jan 2020 07:58:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from cloudflare.com ([176.221.114.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b21sm14822473wmd.37.2020.01.13.07.58.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Jan 2020 07:58:05 -0800 (PST) References: <20200110105027.257877-1-jakub@cloudflare.com> <20200110105027.257877-12-jakub@cloudflare.com> <5e1a712c16d1_76782ace374ba5c02b@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 26.3 From: Jakub Sitnicki To: John Fastabend Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@cloudflare.com, Eric Dumazet , Lorenz Bauer , Martin KaFai Lau Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 11/11] selftests/bpf: Tests for SOCKMAP holding listening sockets In-reply-to: <5e1a712c16d1_76782ace374ba5c02b@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 16:58:05 +0100 Message-ID: <87k15vs60i.fsf@cloudflare.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: bpf-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 02:06 AM CET, John Fastabend wrote: > Jakub Sitnicki wrote: >> Now that SOCKMAP can store listening sockets, user-space and BPF API is >> open to a new set of potential pitfalls. Exercise the map operations (with >> extra attention to code paths susceptible to races between map ops and >> socket cloning), and BPF helpers that work with SOCKMAP to gain confidence >> that all works as expected. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki >> --- > > [...] > >> +static void test_sockmap_insert_listening(int family, int sotype, int mapfd) >> +{ >> + u64 value; >> + u32 key; >> + int s; >> + >> + s = listen_loopback(family, sotype); >> + if (s < 0) >> + return; > > Will the test be marked OK if listen fails here? Should we mark it skipped or > maybe even failed? Just concerned it may be passing even if the update doesn't > actually happen. Yes, it will be marked as failed if we don't succeed in creating a listening socket. The listen_loopback helper uses x{socket,bind,listen} wrappers, which in turn use the CHECK_FAIL macro to fail the test. Thanks for going through this series till the end :-) -jkbs