On 4/17/24 1:14 AM, Geliang Tang wrote:
Hi Martin,
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:10:49AM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
On 4/8/24 10:18 PM, Geliang Tang wrote:
From: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Incorrect arguments are passed to fcntl() in test_sockmap.c when invoking
it to set file status flags. If O_NONBLOCK is used as 2nd argument and
passed into fcntl, -EINVAL will be returned (See do_fcntl() in fs/fcntl.c).
The correct approach is to use F_SETFL as 2nd argument, and O_NONBLOCK as
3rd one.
In nonblock mode, if EWOULDBLOCK is received, continue receiving, otherwise
some subtests of test_sockmap fail.
Fixes: 16962b2404ac ("bpf: sockmap, add selftests")
Signed-off-by: Geliang Tang <tanggeliang@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Yonghong Song <yonghong.song@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
index 024a0faafb3b..4feed253fca2 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_sockmap.c
@@ -603,7 +603,9 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt,
struct timeval timeout;
fd_set w;
- fcntl(fd, fd_flags);
+ if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, fd_flags))
+ goto out_errno;
+
/* Account for pop bytes noting each iteration of apply will
* call msg_pop_data helper so we need to account for this
* by calculating the number of apply iterations. Note user
@@ -678,6 +680,7 @@ static int msg_loop(int fd, int iov_count, int iov_length, int cnt,
perror("recv failed()");
goto out_errno;
}
+ continue;
From looking at it again, there is a select() earlier, so it should not hit
EWOULDBLOCK.
Can the patch in the attachment be accepted? It can work, but I'm not sure
if it has changed the behavior of this test. Anyway, I would like to hear
your opinion.
I don't know what is the correct expectation also. John and JakubS, can you take
a look?
