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 3EA33C4CECE for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:19:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 127E42067C for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 19:19:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cloudflare.com header.i=@cloudflare.com header.b="mBpPOCvS" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726553AbgCLTTL (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:19:11 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-f66.google.com ([209.85.167.66]:41173 "EHLO mail-lf1-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726851AbgCLTTK (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 15:19:10 -0400 Received: by mail-lf1-f66.google.com with SMTP id q10so5820180lfo.8 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:19:09 -0700 (PDT) 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=WZJ/UKGJUnzZUZHFhn84tR/g32XaGlJEI3MHt5Z8Nn8=; b=mBpPOCvSe6zKETPnxnt3S42VROkdiMzgVKmxn6ukTFrJKhlFmp7ef4WkruH5Azq4dU GCCHNhgS7iB7bVSOMoWSdPr/PT9Mz94w+Tlw8yk8vC7vGGpyMUaWlg9LrAeMbLRT+Vmu ETrxyhPs0aI4L9ws9XWHdRhH+PZw0BRC4MALE= 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=WZJ/UKGJUnzZUZHFhn84tR/g32XaGlJEI3MHt5Z8Nn8=; b=A6NU8awSBbVnldAXBE9EbYayMYHWUt0w/+mmb9eH/ryK6Pq7hWWkl2gF6VT05HMxz9 6m8LrfFPQSaDdIQGy6Zyx24hK17PXQOhwKbWheARJdwQUQdOz2B1KHkKy2L+IZDmWeD6 M2lLiJcGRPlkx0qa8GfzuA0X5n0tXwCmQtpcak0UqUAL6tCvRqYIYSXghf4jkd7GDaB7 w3mO9uwAxy0opf3bZmZyWH8t3s0VLaPzxOtQrZCFvZhaHeYzSi8MxvE++2yAvzIQ/gK1 CwiVTm9Bihq8el0/6fp9nnbn5o2MpY2MitxWlJXaQuxcAxpc/NY7+IdKDWc81i4Eko24 yBrw== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2mstbat1iOkt2XHgI52TbXNpPoa6nTRPV6hVp/3u9XaJz164LU IbDxNdBDG9VixIbtdzkCOEJCxA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vslvkZJQicskGyaq5JSHRIWZL6R1eXeD4uDnmxkx9t5iogJCoowPxvArsbTJxcGSid8S/YqAQ== X-Received: by 2002:a19:4354:: with SMTP id m20mr2147831lfj.166.1584040748325; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:19:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cloudflare.com ([2a02:a310:c262:aa00:b35e:8938:2c2a:ba8b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c22sm8155707lfm.25.2020.03.12.12.19.07 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Mar 2020 12:19:07 -0700 (PDT) References: <20200312171105.533690-1-jakub@cloudflare.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 26.3 From: Jakub Sitnicki To: Andrii Nakryiko Cc: bpf , Networking , kernel-team@cloudflare.com Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next] selftests/bpf: Fix spurious failures in accept due to EAGAIN In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 20:19:06 +0100 Message-ID: <87pndhxtxx.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 Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 06:57 PM CET, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:11 AM Jakub Sitnicki wrote: >> >> Andrii Nakryiko reports that sockmap_listen test suite is frequently >> failing due to accept() calls erroring out with EAGAIN: >> >> ./test_progs:connect_accept_thread:733: accept: Resource temporarily unavailable >> connect_accept_thread:FAIL:733 >> >> This is because we are needlessly putting the listening TCP sockets in >> non-blocking mode. >> >> Fix it by using the default blocking mode in all tests in this suite. >> >> Fixes: 44d28be2b8d4 ("selftests/bpf: Tests for sockmap/sockhash holding listening sockets") >> Reported-by: Andrii Nakryiko >> Signed-off-by: Jakub Sitnicki >> --- > > Thanks for looking into this. Can you please verify that test > successfully fails (not hangs) when, say, network is down (do `ip link > set lo down` before running test?). The reason I'm asking is that I > just fixed a problem in tcp_rtt selftest, in which accept() would > block forever, even if listening socket was closed. Right, good point. We don't want tests hanging. Let me rework it. [...]