Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/3] test/vsock: add big message test

[Arseniy Krasnov]

On 21.11.2022 17:52, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 08:52:35PM +0000, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>> This adds test for sending message, bigger than peer's buffer size.
>> For SOCK_SEQPACKET socket it must fail, as this type of socket has
>> message size limit.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <AVKrasnov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>> index 107c11165887..bb4e8657f1d6 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>> @@ -560,6 +560,63 @@ static void test_seqpacket_timeout_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
>>     close(fd);
>> }
>>
>> +static void test_seqpacket_bigmsg_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned long sock_buf_size;
>> +    ssize_t send_size;
>> +    socklen_t len;
>> +    void *data;
>> +    int fd;
>> +
>> +    len = sizeof(sock_buf_size);
>> +
>> +    fd = vsock_seqpacket_connect(opts->peer_cid, 1234);
> 
> Not for this patch, but someday we should add a macro for this port and maybe even make it configurable :-)
> 
>> +    if (fd < 0) {
>> +        perror("connect");
>> +        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    if (getsockopt(fd, AF_VSOCK, SO_VM_SOCKETS_BUFFER_SIZE,
>> +               &sock_buf_size, &len)) {
>> +        perror("getsockopt");
>> +        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    sock_buf_size++;
>> +
>> +    data = malloc(sock_buf_size);
>> +    if (!data) {
>> +        perror("malloc");
>> +        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    send_size = send(fd, data, sock_buf_size, 0);
>> +    if (send_size != -1) {
> 
> Can we check also `errno`?
> IIUC it should contains EMSGSIZE.
> 
>> +        fprintf(stderr, "expected 'send(2)' failure, got %zi\n",
>> +            send_size);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    control_writeln("CLISENT");
>> +
>> +    free(data);
>> +    close(fd);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_seqpacket_bigmsg_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
>> +{
>> +    int fd;
>> +
>> +    fd = vsock_seqpacket_accept(VMADDR_CID_ANY, 1234, NULL);
>> +    if (fd < 0) {
>> +        perror("accept");
>> +        exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    control_expectln("CLISENT");
>> +
>> +    close(fd);
>> +}
>> +
>> #define BUF_PATTERN_1 'a'
>> #define BUF_PATTERN_2 'b'
>>
>> @@ -832,6 +889,11 @@ static struct test_case test_cases[] = {
>>         .run_client = test_seqpacket_timeout_client,
>>         .run_server = test_seqpacket_timeout_server,
>>     },
>> +    {
>> +        .name = "SOCK_SEQPACKET big message",
>> +        .run_client = test_seqpacket_bigmsg_client,
>> +        .run_server = test_seqpacket_bigmsg_server,
>> +    },
> 
> I would add new tests always at the end, so if some CI uses --skip, we don't have to update the scripts to skip some tests.
Ack this and all above
> 
>>     {
>>         .name = "SOCK_SEQPACKET invalid receive buffer",
>>         .run_client = test_seqpacket_invalid_rec_buffer_client,
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>