From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1786E332919 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:11:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776258686; cv=none; b=F4kMqlsNo0IvaZ+nq/s7K6VkIXpobfIcx6Pq04Z/2XIpif4ESqQL3FqGNwrh05lus2lK2SSk2B+YseT4PwAQLaiOHIoGcuyebFufzUF79FW9ylZTmTUbmwvedK+ZlW0AuELXsZ5pl6nNAs6G3rJEPeol6ZTWQCl8iXdGP71nSt4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776258686; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HOy4QBTiHtu5pZJktO361ZlyF5xmQN/JVgQvXBzyBow=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=bHMNia6oC7wXl6U17OZGuK/tX2Y1WkK77siDNIWv4C3mC4wfPnLPGB7Qca/9xVK/o7hnCZHXcgEG2w7EAG25un52cCDkKgirtKM8tIAC9Dx4bHlaXJ6ABnnbJdREQmkk28DMNxhRfl0VnnDB5AHRjaN+a4AjxbFwy8GK5LW99dc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=OC0cUE0G; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="OC0cUE0G" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1776258683; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=WL2SJseQynMpG1hsJR3ThfhQkhlDiJgfMk9Ad5tgV64=; b=OC0cUE0GibiyV5D9TNdQaTeYxHt2GmaRLg2/cO7SkptEPo8PIzK5+kagAUbGT7WeC7FLAp jzN+MuouDFqYXu84hsnhR9xM5Et8vjfiMcILOGKZ5BATwYy7bw6ZMTT0+u4ZUBe7N2fgZq tOUHM3wrmE3tQFWmAg0rQeNQT9hjiic= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-501-knHUGWerMoWryXj83LUanw-1; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:11:21 -0400 X-MC-Unique: knHUGWerMoWryXj83LUanw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: knHUGWerMoWryXj83LUanw_1776258681 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-488d4ac6ff9so38950465e9.1 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 06:11:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1776258680; x=1776863480; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=WL2SJseQynMpG1hsJR3ThfhQkhlDiJgfMk9Ad5tgV64=; b=kqAs2ErLFQ9GMdmWBOU85ZjqKi3fN48wkL3w/WpjMiqxZODelnz/4th4wD/TzuQLte WLgiTGdgpjkNN3LC6cinJgjtph35Y1gz873h9hE0PLBtpJrhSBPMuHm8FYYa3Qu3yYa/ OlfKUN4OchSfyiHbbQ9KPQe6qpu4pOtAqoPt27U6TgLmqPnUpkBGJKNNqwWX2pgLwzBA XukVdWn9AQnXh019UkPMuw2zVkILegHT1GG+PaVds9LT0IB7XmTDENJbT/+nDmOsEctS rkDJL+MQuCleiq53PPgNUCW/5CEkXb84INMsc0QJf+QGJ0M7LO0t2lZcA/OODCnKEIfk +Z3Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AFNElJ/1eEAdu78NjvyW2IhG55P52CfqpSkIU8lhcwTU7BDfT4CmLAWk16XzW4EjmP/EUszobnjuJOp2kTr5ex9hpg==@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzg2UQzYNEdOCvaPaBstrTaHRsI2MK1MjiCaiX1zeCT9l2tEMPO osi5GxK+OHCD3+8CdkFIu+Ovw7Ut/yhet2DlL6To6q2zXxuhq/OPcZi7V+n2jEbk1DGJ0ZcNelB ocabMC6vPuTYIWzR20f/rcbwLQNRMQuzkwap1XLkDiQTWQMx5iMMJiL8RD4n+p4/1iezJ X-Gm-Gg: AeBDievEeWRehnM93mFxjySWzZtd2dSu1vCFjAkMVbOLQCNKZZMu0eSfk6ei0hin4PW YB17a0oEjC2sSO12Si7vp85TYdQ1BYfeCUsmMFQZN0afilbWomhPDaXLbuEnF6ztagHMr9ctGgZ IrH2e3InlnwotSLCCinKafcUE3h/sikrtJSIY6y5St0K3mBvL1usnAgaOaGXq7Wi0uI1yVzDvUw 8WyshKnDp/jSOACFFMgebnzC4a6CkK1bfnRRjPkJu565H54CSBVK+2tlF9+sODS6x9rHnOFhKM6 NW0QHqjlTheemlcKZpDPGZeCutEmoyLtmeGSNWbZ1L+uc8EZGyBrqraR4NjPGhBjfXBC4DCjJgS IPgdSFq6VuqNbtC6WAX9KBDA8c9Y= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:6994:b0:485:3eba:ab96 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-488d67bbcbamr306254135e9.3.1776258680473; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 06:11:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:6994:b0:485:3eba:ab96 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-488d67bbcbamr306253665e9.3.1776258679964; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 06:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leonardi-redhat ([176.206.19.176]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-488f0ebd0e1sm20362525e9.28.2026.04.15.06.11.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 15 Apr 2026 06:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 15:11:16 +0200 From: Luigi Leonardi To: Stefano Garzarella Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , Xuan Zhuo , Eugenio =?utf-8?B?UMOpcmV6?= , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Arseniy Krasnov , kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3 2/3] vsock/test: fix MSG_PEEK handling in recv_buf() Message-ID: References: <20260414-fix_peek-v3-0-e7daead49f83@redhat.com> <20260414-fix_peek-v3-2-e7daead49f83@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: virtualization@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: J3VT2wqMSOmxW5eVsu8Yvw8DQKFLfdP9-O4UnF_zK7w_1776258681 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 01:54:43PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 01:31:11PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: >>On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 06:10:22PM +0200, Luigi Leonardi wrote: >>>`recv_buf` does not handle the MSG_PEEK flag correctly: it keeps calling >>>`recv` until all requested bytes are available or an error occurs. >>> >>>The problem is how it calculates the amount of bytes read: MSG_PEEK >>>doesn't consume any bytes, will re-read the same bytes from the buffer >>>head, so, summing the return value every time is wrong. >>> >>>Moreover, MSG_PEEK doesn't consume the bytes in the buffer, so if the >>>requested amount is more than the bytes available, the loop will never >>>terminate, because `recv` will never return EOF. For this reason we need >>>to compare the amount of read bytes with the number of bytes expected. >>> >>>Add a check, and if the MSG_PEEK flag is present, update the counter of >>>read bytes differently, and break if we read the expected amount. >> >>nit: "..., update the counter for bytes read only after all expected >>bytes have been read and break out of the loop; otherwise, try again >>after a short delay to avoid consuming too many CPU cycles." >> >>> >>>This allows us to simplify the `test_stream_credit_update_test`, by >>>reusing `recv_buf`, like some other tests already do. >>> >>>This also fixes callers that pass MSG_PEEK to recv_buf(). >> >>nit: this is implicit from the first part of the description. >> >>> >>>Suggested-by: Stefano Garzarella >>>Signed-off-by: Luigi Leonardi >>>--- >>>tools/testing/vsock/util.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ >>>tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 13 +------------ >>>2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) >>> >>>diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/util.c b/tools/testing/vsock/util.c >>>index 1fe1338c79cd..2c9ee3210090 100644 >>>--- a/tools/testing/vsock/util.c >>>+++ b/tools/testing/vsock/util.c >>>@@ -381,7 +381,13 @@ void send_buf(int fd, const void *buf, size_t len, int flags, >>> } >>>} >>> >>>+#define RECV_PEEK_RETRY_USEC 10 >> >>10 usec IMO are a bit low, it could be the same order of the >>syscalls involved in the loop, I'd go to some milliseconds like we >>do for SEND_SLEEP_USEC. >> >>>+ >>>/* Receive bytes in a buffer and check the return value. >>>+ * >>>+ * MSG_PEEK note: MSG_PEEK doesn't consume bytes from the buffer, so partial >>>+ * reads cannot be summed. Instead, the function retries until recv() returns >>>+ * exactly expected_ret bytes in a single call. >> >>I'd replace with something like this: >> >> * When MSG_PEEK is set, recv() is retried until it returns exactly >> * expected_ret bytes. The function returns on error, EOF, or timeout >> * as usual. >> >>Thanks, >>Stefano >> >>>* >>>* expected_ret: >>>* <0 Negative errno (for testing errors) >>>@@ -403,6 +409,15 @@ void recv_buf(int fd, void *buf, size_t len, int flags, ssize_t expected_ret) >>> if (ret <= 0) >>> break; >>> >>>+ if (flags & MSG_PEEK) { >>>+ if (ret == expected_ret) { > >On second thought, I think it would be more appropriate to check for >`ret >= expected_ret` here, because all subsequent recv() will >definitely return more bytes, so there’s no point in continuing the >loop... and anyway, we’ll check the result later, so just that change >should be fine. > >And of course I'd update the comment on top in this way: > > * When MSG_PEEK is set, recv() is retried until it returns at least > * expected_ret bytes. The function returns on error, EOF, or timeout > * as usual. > >Thanks, >Stefano > Good idea, will do. Thanks! Luigi