From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (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 CE5671A9FAA for ; Tue, 7 Apr 2026 08:45:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775551546; cv=none; b=e01WWZF8/P3HXwoXRSg0Nyfvoo3hxT5w5YI6/BcfSniiMzDSBoIr92apPWSgFWbjWWMJ6GAhaVKyxaUET3yfpgkJiLzZlAETTdnbePlN6tMoBvSVgkiKB4hYack76rnKnD3dUHyyE4Bh8MNIbBlz9NkqsmZZgSXrRGgSiZGU30E= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1775551546; c=relaxed/simple; bh=z7XMqNzqbaQp3YVbNCSinxYvK5mXLBbHoHlDC+DisRo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=SIDsmDc/DbQ/EQTODsNG313xg/YZBtwSvokgRZ0qENZuz5o5z5sWlfG5dlHrcxmR0O5QYShE6XLF58tvOej9/vi2BEJBBJO415xuCUEC0tbf3efAbimDzeJCUrw25qLWk05fIdVeML/JQA9SclE3yB424AgDgARt5eQXmUz4jQI= 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=EpR1qZte; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 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="EpR1qZte" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1775551543; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=90Dv0Gfd1H3V0FF0ZZTa8jkFYwFCJbiDQpupdqGKTx4=; b=EpR1qZteUq0PYnuTPxMkc2pRa/PE3v+B0+5AA5VsvPDV1M7BVAfGGxUf9xe19UQ36gUl0X VBENqumC1/GDdQKSmWPsCxVMlGXlwi0gsB0xBmO9zFGq1U69uWWN/De57Qz8IQPZ9y+Kwc QAOUVSQyyNI362Hc73Jpxvv1nCSXPjg= Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-540-A_EKEtPkNBKypdtkU4nGWA-1; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 04:45:42 -0400 X-MC-Unique: A_EKEtPkNBKypdtkU4nGWA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: A_EKEtPkNBKypdtkU4nGWA_1775551542 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-488b6feb9beso6483825e9.3 for ; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 01:45:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1775551541; x=1776156341; h=in-reply-to: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=90Dv0Gfd1H3V0FF0ZZTa8jkFYwFCJbiDQpupdqGKTx4=; b=YXti5+j9A6YrqePEnUp5OBw6FO7dOBNlzfLlzAwxsK4WOaDQbIGcDXEHoIiVELBzWG 3ctwc152P4gNhbexT3YsozjMdj5S5WLlz4HUPYwTw7+hsKP/zCrEPpdFYPcmDRsaEyqG CZUYd0k8EVEduv+7kzRLdvSmkocNKTutKoLs0WhCEipU27cxKjQd7siBudFmx6GV+Dg0 9ePrrBS3OhyZnn0zIgP3VNYC5DNfAC5bSKSXb+1T6zpgvzcT13Gbr8V9/UJMEkbYkgq6 IZ5Oxd1a1/or4kaHl/r7XOH9fHplacrv/2M1ZU1eUBlaDmeNi9mBFH9B2Q3atFaraa0e aiMQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUJ+3PgMSIrbODI0Dce607bcgLf06nkTahJuoEeTUJ4aqCGT7frZP8jvKjFPaLuaNQoNSkRRVXIPPQgZhSFOg==@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzLw4bIS9p46eJby72nstXDb03xVb0nAcQUaYmFw0dN3ALV1u5O osy+0axqWc5PRFvr+jeoXjeIcmldYCyb7lJIICdI0ebFfGspr11mRHAaC/p8tsoSn45r1/K/ti6 exXvA5cR+SclC/LufznR9/mRGu2oCZw12YzB/BDwGfENuEj9KGEZB6e7JXVy+RVfCdXHY X-Gm-Gg: AeBDietfS6TtmKYeD/e4HGKFeMRTdK6IB12eZwUt5pa/RiGKNblPvrzFypK53x6MdkK V+jxJFQs+KbswRM6K25lQkxEYuV7zmmS4o1ZGW/UyAxWp5PBL7B3FWM/Y81lf6TFpqpvVeiRAk+ FFaoDe0ciLc7lI1GP0jVv7GKYVX4wfaC0n5mdLMlukIkrv2lJL8kVt2xvqJ7a6Y+sSuIP+xIMv9 DB9xYcAPQD3J7Y4gBEpg3LukMBl3fcy3w2ZUUMSp6OTzEFja1QAVSbbOy+9WvmsxZfrRLeaR/Q9 9EwF8/CJ92Xqq/6xBBYiLuiutr1JPI7VYssBbujyr18G3fLXln8QTUhTYKNSseT7nL9V9zAc7G/ MgBg5If+oApLNFFJR7a2+hHBCxW0= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f15:b0:488:945a:ed63 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-488995cbaa7mr243063785e9.0.1775551541499; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 01:45:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f15:b0:488:945a:ed63 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-488995cbaa7mr243063245e9.0.1775551541043; Tue, 07 Apr 2026 01:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from leonardi-redhat ([176.206.19.176]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4888a7165aasm527048625e9.14.2026.04.07.01.45.39 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 07 Apr 2026 01:45:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2026 10:45:37 +0200 From: Luigi Leonardi To: Arseniy Krasnov Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi , Stefano Garzarella , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Jason Wang , Xuan Zhuo , Eugenio =?utf-8?B?UMOpcmV6?= , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net 2/2] vsock/test: add MSG_PEEK after partial recv test Message-ID: References: <20260402-fix_peek-v1-0-ad274fcef77b@redhat.com> <20260402-fix_peek-v1-2-ad274fcef77b@redhat.com> <2521971f-798d-4560-b2d8-bb540591d4b1@salutedevices.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: virtualization@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2521971f-798d-4560-b2d8-bb540591d4b1@salutedevices.com> X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: FhrPGOMlQeWq1GodgSHj760kTc-gaY4HX_gZE-d1tXc_1775551542 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Hi Arseniy, On Sun, Apr 05, 2026 at 10:14:26PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote: > > >02.04.2026 11:18, Luigi Leonardi wrote: >> Add a test that verifies MSG_PEEK works correctly after a partial >> recv(). >> >> This is to test a bug that was present in the `virtio_transport_stream_do_peek()` >> when computing the number of bytes to copy: After a partial read, the >> peek function didn't take into consideration the number of bytes that >> were already read. So peeking the whole buffer would cause a out-of-bounds read, >> that resulted in a -EFAULT. >> >> This test does exactly this: do a partial recv on a buffer, then try to >> peek the whole buffer content. >> >> Signed-off-by: Luigi Leonardi >> --- >> tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c >> index 5bd20ccd9335caafe68e8b7a5d02a4deb3d2deec..308f9f8f30d22bec5aaa282356e400d8438fe321 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c >> @@ -346,6 +346,65 @@ static void test_stream_msg_peek_server(const struct test_opts *opts) >> return test_msg_peek_server(opts, false); >> } >> >> +#define PEEK_AFTER_RECV_LEN 100 > >Hi, may be we can just reuse MSG_PEEK_BUF_LEN which was already used in MSG_PEEK tests ? > yep, good idea! Thanks!