On 17.03.2022 11:07, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 05:26:45AM +0000, Krasnov Arseniy Vladimirovich wrote:
>> Test for receive timeout check: connection is established,
>> receiver sets timeout, but sender does nothing. Receiver's
>> 'read()' call must return EAGAIN.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krasnov Arseniy Vladimirovich <AVKrasnov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v2 -> v3:
>> 1) Use 'fprintf()' instead of 'perror()' where 'errno' variable
>> is not affected.
>> 2) Print 'read()' overhead.
>>
>> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>> index 2a3638c0a008..f5498de6751d 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c
>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> #include <sys/types.h>
>> #include <sys/socket.h>
>> +#include <time.h>
>>
>> #include "timeout.h"
>> #include "control.h"
>> @@ -391,6 +392,84 @@ static void test_seqpacket_msg_trunc_server(const struct test_opts *opts)
>> close(fd);
>> }
>>
>> +static time_t current_nsec(void)
>> +{
>> + struct timespec ts;
>> +
>> + if (clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts)) {
>> + perror("clock_gettime(3) failed");
>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return (ts.tv_sec * 1000000000ULL) + ts.tv_nsec;
>> +}
>> +
>> +#define RCVTIMEO_TIMEOUT_SEC 1
>> +#define READ_OVERHEAD_NSEC 250000000 /* 0.25 sec */
>> +
>> +static void test_seqpacket_timeout_client(const struct test_opts *opts)
>> +{
>> + int fd;
>> + struct timeval tv;
>> + char dummy;
>> + time_t read_enter_ns;
>> + time_t read_overhead_ns;
>> +
>> + fd = vsock_seqpacket_connect(opts->peer_cid, 1234);
>> + if (fd < 0) {
>> + perror("connect");
>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + }
>> +
>> + tv.tv_sec = RCVTIMEO_TIMEOUT_SEC;
>> + tv.tv_usec = 0;
>> +
>> + if (setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVTIMEO, (void *)&tv, sizeof(tv)) == -1) {
>> + perror("setsockopt 'SO_RCVTIMEO'");
>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + }
>> +
>> + read_enter_ns = current_nsec();
>> +
>> + if (errno != EAGAIN) {
>> + perror("EAGAIN expected");
>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + }
>
> Should this check go after read()?
>
> Indeed now the test fails on my environment with "EAGAIN expected" message.
>
> The rest LGTM :-)
Oops, sorry :)
>
> Stefano
>
>> +
>> + if (read(fd, &dummy, sizeof(dummy)) != -1) {
>> + fprintf(stderr,
>> + "expected 'dummy' read(2) failure\n");
>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + }
>> +
>> + read_overhead_ns = current_nsec() - read_enter_ns -
>> + 1000000000ULL * RCVTIMEO_TIMEOUT_SEC;
>> +
>> + if (read_overhead_ns > READ_OVERHEAD_NSEC) {
>> + fprintf(stderr,
>> + "too much time in read(2), %lu > %i ns\n",
>> + read_overhead_ns, READ_OVERHEAD_NSEC);
>> + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> + }
>> +
>> + control_writeln("WAITDONE");
>> + close(fd);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void test_seqpacket_timeout_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("WAITDONE");
>> + close(fd);
>> +}
>> +
>> static struct test_case test_cases[] = {
>> {
>> .name = "SOCK_STREAM connection reset",
>> @@ -431,6 +510,11 @@ static struct test_case test_cases[] = {
>> .run_client = test_seqpacket_msg_trunc_client,
>> .run_server = test_seqpacket_msg_trunc_server,
>> },
>> + {
>> + .name = "SOCK_SEQPACKET timeout",
>> + .run_client = test_seqpacket_timeout_client,
>> + .run_server = test_seqpacket_timeout_server,
>> + },
>> {},
>> };
>>
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>
