[PATCH net-next v2] selftests: af_unix: validate SO_PEEK_OFF advancement and reset

[PATCH net-next v2] selftests: af_unix: validate SO_PEEK_OFF advancement and reset

[Soichiro Ueda]

Extend the so_peek_off selftest to ensure the socket peek offset is handled
correctly after both MSG_PEEK and actual data consumption.

Verify that the peek offset advances by the same amount as the number of
bytes read when performing a read with MSG_PEEK.

After exercising SO_PEEK_OFF via MSG_PEEK, drain the receive queue with a
non-peek recv() and verify that it can receive all the content in the
buffer and SO_PEEK_OFF returns back to 0.

The verification after actual data consumption was suggested by Miao Wang
when the original so_peek_off selftest was introduced.

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7B657CC7-B5CA-46D2-8A4B-8AB5FB83C6DA@gmail.com/
Suggested-by: Miao Wang <shankerwangmiao@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Soichiro Ueda <the.latticeheart@gmail.com>
---
v1 -> v2:
- Add peekoffeq checks after MSG_PEEK to verify offset advancement
- Unify the length in the non-peek read

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260122033605.148626-1-the.latticeheart@gmail.com/ 

 .../selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c       | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c
index 86e7b0fb522d..9640a3975aee 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c
@@ -76,6 +76,19 @@ FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(so_peek_off)
 		ASSERT_STREQ(str, buf);				\
 	} while (0)
 
+#define peekoffeq(fd, expected)					\
+	do {							\
+		int off = -1;					\
+		socklen_t optlen = sizeof(off);		\
+		int ret;					\
+								\
+		ret = getsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_PEEK_OFF,	\
+				 &off, &optlen);		\
+		ASSERT_EQ(0, ret);				\
+		ASSERT_EQ((socklen_t)sizeof(off), optlen);	\
+		ASSERT_EQ(expected, off);			\
+	} while (0)
+
 #define async							\
 	for (pid_t pid = (pid = fork(),				\
 			  pid < 0 ?				\
@@ -91,7 +104,12 @@ TEST_F(so_peek_off, single_chunk)
 	sendeq(self->fd[0], "aaaabbbb", 0);
 
 	recveq(self->fd[1], "aaaa", 4, MSG_PEEK);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 4);
 	recveq(self->fd[1], "bbbb", 100, MSG_PEEK);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 8);
+
+	recveq(self->fd[1], "aaaabbbb", 8, 0);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 0);
 }
 
 TEST_F(so_peek_off, two_chunks)
@@ -100,7 +118,13 @@ TEST_F(so_peek_off, two_chunks)
 	sendeq(self->fd[0], "bbbb", 0);
 
 	recveq(self->fd[1], "aaaa", 4, MSG_PEEK);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 4);
 	recveq(self->fd[1], "bbbb", 100, MSG_PEEK);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 8);
+
+	recveq(self->fd[1], "aaaa", 4, 0);
+	recveq(self->fd[1], "bbbb", 4, 0);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 0);
 }
 
 TEST_F(so_peek_off, two_chunks_blocking)
@@ -111,6 +135,7 @@ TEST_F(so_peek_off, two_chunks_blocking)
 	}
 
 	recveq(self->fd[1], "aaaa", 4, MSG_PEEK);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 4);
 
 	async {
 		usleep(1000);
@@ -119,24 +144,38 @@ TEST_F(so_peek_off, two_chunks_blocking)
 
 	/* goto again; -> goto redo; in unix_stream_read_generic(). */
 	recveq(self->fd[1], "bbbb", 100, MSG_PEEK);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 8);
+
+	recveq(self->fd[1], "aaaa", 4, 0);
+	recveq(self->fd[1], "bbbb", 4, 0);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 0);
 }
 
 TEST_F(so_peek_off, two_chunks_overlap)
 {
 	sendeq(self->fd[0], "aaaa", 0);
 	recveq(self->fd[1], "aa", 2, MSG_PEEK);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 2);
 
 	sendeq(self->fd[0], "bbbb", 0);
 
 	if (variant->type == SOCK_STREAM) {
 		/* SOCK_STREAM tries to fill the buffer. */
 		recveq(self->fd[1], "aabb", 4, MSG_PEEK);
+		peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 6);
 		recveq(self->fd[1], "bb", 100, MSG_PEEK);
+		peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 8);
 	} else {
 		/* SOCK_DGRAM and SOCK_SEQPACKET returns at the skb boundary. */
 		recveq(self->fd[1], "aa", 100, MSG_PEEK);
+		peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 4);
 		recveq(self->fd[1], "bbbb", 100, MSG_PEEK);
+		peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 8);
 	}
+
+	recveq(self->fd[1], "aaaa", 4, 0);
+	recveq(self->fd[1], "bbbb", 4, 0);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 0);
 }
 
 TEST_F(so_peek_off, two_chunks_overlap_blocking)
@@ -147,6 +186,7 @@ TEST_F(so_peek_off, two_chunks_overlap_blocking)
 	}
 
 	recveq(self->fd[1], "aa", 2, MSG_PEEK);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 2);
 
 	async {
 		usleep(1000);
@@ -155,8 +195,14 @@ TEST_F(so_peek_off, two_chunks_overlap_blocking)
 
 	/* Even SOCK_STREAM does not wait if at least one byte is read. */
 	recveq(self->fd[1], "aa", 100, MSG_PEEK);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 4);
 
 	recveq(self->fd[1], "bbbb", 100, MSG_PEEK);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 8);
+
+	recveq(self->fd[1], "aaaa", 4, 0);
+	recveq(self->fd[1], "bbbb", 4, 0);
+	peekoffeq(self->fd[1], 0);
 }
 
 TEST_HARNESS_MAIN
-- 
2.53.0

Re: [PATCH net-next v2] selftests: af_unix: validate SO_PEEK_OFF advancement and reset

[Willem de Bruijn]

Soichiro Ueda wrote:
> Extend the so_peek_off selftest to ensure the socket peek offset is handled
> correctly after both MSG_PEEK and actual data consumption.
> 
> Verify that the peek offset advances by the same amount as the number of
> bytes read when performing a read with MSG_PEEK.
> 
> After exercising SO_PEEK_OFF via MSG_PEEK, drain the receive queue with a
> non-peek recv() and verify that it can receive all the content in the
> buffer and SO_PEEK_OFF returns back to 0.
> 
> The verification after actual data consumption was suggested by Miao Wang
> when the original so_peek_off selftest was introduced.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7B657CC7-B5CA-46D2-8A4B-8AB5FB83C6DA@gmail.com/
> Suggested-by: Miao Wang <shankerwangmiao@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Soichiro Ueda <the.latticeheart@gmail.com>

Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>

Re: [PATCH net-next v2] selftests: af_unix: validate SO_PEEK_OFF advancement and reset

[Kuniyuki Iwashima]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:05 PM Soichiro Ueda
<the.latticeheart@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Extend the so_peek_off selftest to ensure the socket peek offset is handled
> correctly after both MSG_PEEK and actual data consumption.
>
> Verify that the peek offset advances by the same amount as the number of
> bytes read when performing a read with MSG_PEEK.
>
> After exercising SO_PEEK_OFF via MSG_PEEK, drain the receive queue with a
> non-peek recv() and verify that it can receive all the content in the
> buffer and SO_PEEK_OFF returns back to 0.
>
> The verification after actual data consumption was suggested by Miao Wang
> when the original so_peek_off selftest was introduced.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7B657CC7-B5CA-46D2-8A4B-8AB5FB83C6DA@gmail.com/
> Suggested-by: Miao Wang <shankerwangmiao@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Soichiro Ueda <the.latticeheart@gmail.com>
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> - Add peekoffeq checks after MSG_PEEK to verify offset advancement
> - Unify the length in the non-peek read
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260122033605.148626-1-the.latticeheart@gmail.com/
>
>  .../selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c       | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c
> index 86e7b0fb522d..9640a3975aee 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c
> @@ -76,6 +76,19 @@ FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(so_peek_off)
>                 ASSERT_STREQ(str, buf);                         \
>         } while (0)
>
> +#define peekoffeq(fd, expected)                                        \
> +       do {                                                    \
> +               int off = -1;                                   \
> +               socklen_t optlen = sizeof(off);         \

nit: Can you insert one more tab before \ here ?

While at it, please sort variables in reverse xmas tree order.

socklen_t optlen = sizeof(off);
int ret, off = -1;

Otherwise looks good, thanks !

Reviewed-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@google.com>

Re: [PATCH net-next v2] selftests: af_unix: validate SO_PEEK_OFF advancement and reset

[Soichiro Ueda]

> On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 11:05 PM Soichiro Ueda
> <the.latticeheart@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Extend the so_peek_off selftest to ensure the socket peek offset is handled
> > correctly after both MSG_PEEK and actual data consumption.
> >
> > Verify that the peek offset advances by the same amount as the number of
> > bytes read when performing a read with MSG_PEEK.
> >
> > After exercising SO_PEEK_OFF via MSG_PEEK, drain the receive queue with a
> > non-peek recv() and verify that it can receive all the content in the
> > buffer and SO_PEEK_OFF returns back to 0.
> >
> > The verification after actual data consumption was suggested by Miao Wang
> > when the original so_peek_off selftest was introduced.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/7B657CC7-B5CA-46D2-8A4B-8AB5FB83C6DA@gmail.com/
> > Suggested-by: Miao Wang <shankerwangmiao@gmail.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Soichiro Ueda <the.latticeheart@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > v1 -> v2:
> > - Add peekoffeq checks after MSG_PEEK to verify offset advancement
> > - Unify the length in the non-peek read
> >
> > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260122033605.148626-1-the.latticeheart@gmail.com/
> >
> >  .../selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c       | 46 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c b/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c
> > index 86e7b0fb522d..9640a3975aee 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/af_unix/so_peek_off.c
> > @@ -76,6 +76,19 @@ FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(so_peek_off)
> >                 ASSERT_STREQ(str, buf);                         \
> >         } while (0)
> >
> > +#define peekoffeq(fd, expected)                                        \
> > +       do {                                                    \
> > +               int off = -1;                                   \
> > +               socklen_t optlen = sizeof(off);         \
>
> nit: Can you insert one more tab before \ here ?
>
> While at it, please sort variables in reverse xmas tree order.
>
> socklen_t optlen = sizeof(off);
> int ret, off = -1;

Thank you for the review, Willem and Kuniyuki.
I'll fix these formatting issues and variable ordering in v3.
I'll send it shortly.

Thanks!