Netdev List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>,
	Jiang Wang <jiang.wang@bytedance.com>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
	Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>,
	Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch bpf] selftests/bpf: Retry for EAGAIN in udp_redir_to_connected()
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 10:47:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <60a6a0c61358a_4ea08208c4@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAM_iQpUC6ZOiH=ifUe1+cdXtTgiBMwPVLSsWB9zwBA7gWh8mgA@mail.gmail.com>

Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 2:56 PM John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Cong Wang wrote:
> > > From: Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>
> > >
> > > We use non-blocking sockets for testing sockmap redirections,
> > > and got some random EAGAIN errors from UDP tests.
> > >
> > > There is no guarantee the packet would be immediately available
> > > to receive as soon as it is sent out, even on the local host.
> > > For UDP, this is especially true because it does not lock the
> > > sock during BH (unlike the TCP path). This is probably why we
> > > only saw this error in UDP cases.
> > >
> > > No matter how hard we try to make the queue empty check accurate,
> > > it is always possible for recvmsg() to beat ->sk_data_ready().
> > > Therefore, we should just retry in case of EAGAIN.
> > >
> > > Fixes: d6378af615275 ("selftests/bpf: Add a test case for udp sockmap")
> > > Reported-by: Jiang Wang <jiang.wang@bytedance.com>
> > > Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
> > > Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > > Cc: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
> > > Cc: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <cong.wang@bytedance.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_listen.c | 6 +++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_listen.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_listen.c
> > > index 648d9ae898d2..b1ed182c4720 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_listen.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/sockmap_listen.c
> > > @@ -1686,9 +1686,13 @@ static void udp_redir_to_connected(int family, int sotype, int sock_mapfd,
> > >       if (pass != 1)
> > >               FAIL("%s: want pass count 1, have %d", log_prefix, pass);
> > >
> > > +again:
> > >       n = read(mode == REDIR_INGRESS ? p0 : c0, &b, 1);
> > > -     if (n < 0)
> > > +     if (n < 0) {
> > > +             if (errno == EAGAIN)
> > > +                     goto again;
> > >               FAIL_ERRNO("%s: read", log_prefix);
> >
> > Needs a counter and abort logic we don't want to loop forever in the
> > case the packet is lost.
> 
> It should not be lost because selftests must be self-contained,
> if the selftests could not even predict whether its own packet is
> lost or not, we would have a much bigger trouble than just this
> infinite loop.
> 
> Thanks.

Add the retry counter its maybe 4 lines of code. When I run this in a container
and my memcg kicks in for some unknown reason I don't want it to loop
forever I want it to fail gracefully. Plus it just looks bad to encode
a non-terminating loop, in my opinion, so I want the counter.

.John

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-20 17:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-19 20:41 [Patch bpf] selftests/bpf: Retry for EAGAIN in udp_redir_to_connected() Cong Wang
2021-05-19 21:55 ` John Fastabend
2021-05-19 23:36   ` Cong Wang
2021-05-20 17:47     ` John Fastabend [this message]
2021-05-20 20:00       ` Cong Wang
2021-05-22  0:12         ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-05-20 20:14     ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-05-20 20:44       ` Cong Wang
2021-05-21  5:12         ` Andrii Nakryiko
2021-05-21 21:49           ` Cong Wang
2021-06-03  8:10         ` Jakub Sitnicki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=60a6a0c61358a_4ea08208c4@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch \
    --to=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
    --cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=cong.wang@bytedance.com \
    --cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
    --cc=jakub@cloudflare.com \
    --cc=jiang.wang@bytedance.com \
    --cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox