Re: [PATCH bpf v2 4/4] selftests/bpf: Fail unbound UDP on sockmap update

[Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>]

On 6/26/26 23:03, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2026 at 1:37 PM Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co> wrote:
>>
>> sockmap now rejects unbound UDP sockets. Adjust test_maps.
>>
>> This effectively reverts commit c39aa2159974 ("bpf, selftests: Fix
>> test_maps now that sockmap supports UDP").
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Luczaj <mhal@rbox.co>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c | 6 +++---
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
>> index c32da7bd8be2..81cd5d0d69c1 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_maps.c
>> @@ -759,12 +759,12 @@ static void test_sockmap(unsigned int tasks, void *data)
>>                 goto out_sockmap;
>>         }
>>
>> -       /* Test update with unsupported UDP socket */
>> +       /* Test update with unsupported unbound UDP socket */
>>         udp = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0);
>>         i = 0;
>>         err = bpf_map_update_elem(fd, &i, &udp, BPF_ANY);
>> -       if (err) {
>> -               printf("Failed socket update SOCK_DGRAM '%i:%i'\n",
>> +       if (!err) {
>> +               printf("Failed allowed unbound SOCK_DGRAM socket update '%i:%i'\n",
> 
> nit: Maybe s/Failed/Unexpectedly succeeded/ ?

Sure. I've tried to align with the other printfs ("failed allowed..."), but
I agree it was unclear.

> If we want to avoid breakage, this patch needs to be squashed to
> the fix patch, but it's discouraged in netdev, not sure about bpf tree.

I guess I'll just post v3 as is, and squash if requested.

thanks,
Michal