From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailtransmit04.runbox.com (mailtransmit04.runbox.com [185.226.149.37]) (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 840F93B1AB; Wed, 28 May 2025 20:47:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.37 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748465225; cv=none; b=CZdStSGKz+c8qwdnKu6MX0TPb+OCen9YiLtms3e/7aAqhfVplENXQ6RehBJnSZdIoaVNSIj8iEz9gOcWTSTolbGwKjIGgFJyUxaQ6gDn6MNYsE5D/hQs2JtHr9nv7KiO3woEP9ta9TVHAMald5TyE+jMG5UIo9ph/mKIvwSnUtE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1748465225; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fVp99q/7nR/2Qu8kOa163BQ8/bMTec7kquQzdJRIRwg=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=eKeTInWVrS6h2fwfUhHtYR5mrML/lt2ia6vCkYLqAOX9uXgtEEsjxxWBLLW1CFnInS2FCh4+sIlLsGjafeeZckbtIeJEqROnr9FPRlkRsdakCmz+IcPVpV4LBQhPAB+P8VlEoLQka8K4CFNv/yppmPrxDMB2P2GvzkGfRIkWkpc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=rbox.co; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rbox.co; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbox.co header.i=@rbox.co header.b=d5usDPDZ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.226.149.37 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=rbox.co Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rbox.co Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rbox.co header.i=@rbox.co header.b="d5usDPDZ" Received: from mailtransmit03.runbox ([10.9.9.163] helo=aibo.runbox.com) by mailtransmit04.runbox.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1uKNfw-006kup-PU; Wed, 28 May 2025 22:47:00 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rbox.co; s=selector2; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References: Cc:To:Subject:From:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID; bh=mHGbDnTnT+lOyuS9ni4kZmOkuGfOKTTj/i53GQlfiKA=; b=d5usDPDZ82aCjqem6aXrDuz4pd GCzPX05k0anzYyu3ogAhKHm719fu9E0pDSswit8b2N/i3B2zfTlYleOIHJ7Qzw9QAWjAOeVz+AnJV /4I8DH8W9xJp8EP2FDd4MGZofmtiAqGPoMZYE9lsNbhqbKkzi9t/mMcYranG5hr8tIy2m4Ob3YRK+ 5gzZbHJnH9hmOoN6Tk8w7d28wJn0o4FHup7DtZRNO/L1ZQKWP/kdE9ebrCf4tC1xtyJVYm22hbZga xju4WjWu/zg/oLdPuTdIlaXEPYa6loK66DK9G5JedE8ZQoSgQi/DEd8la4IunHkRcdUuHTGEc40Yp e2HuW1EA==; Received: from [10.9.9.74] (helo=submission03.runbox) by mailtransmit03.runbox with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1uKNfw-0005OQ-C3; Wed, 28 May 2025 22:47:00 +0200 Received: by submission03.runbox with esmtpsa [Authenticated ID (604044)] (TLS1.2:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.93) id 1uKNfg-00GL99-0q; Wed, 28 May 2025 22:46:44 +0200 Message-ID: <1ed7b81c-4c7f-4c4b-9fb5-d231aeeeb5b6@rbox.co> Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 22:46:43 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Michal Luczaj Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] vsock/test: Cover more CIDs in transport_uaf test To: Stefano Garzarella Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20250523-vsock-test-inc-cov-v1-1-fa3507941bbd@rbox.co> <1f5cc46a-de4c-4361-a706-fc7fe06a7068@rbox.co> <151bf5fe-c9ca-4244-aa21-8d7b8ff2470f@rbox.co> <54959090-440e-49e8-80b3-8eee0ef4582c@rbox.co> <7zqv5toj2qjucy7fvaebbpwj6pth53uunsbapwhgrhwbr5pq5t@gp7h6klhr5sj> Content-Language: pl-PL, en-GB In-Reply-To: <7zqv5toj2qjucy7fvaebbpwj6pth53uunsbapwhgrhwbr5pq5t@gp7h6klhr5sj> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5/28/25 11:08, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:58:28AM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote: >> Administrative query: while net-next is closed, am I supposed to mark this >> series as "RFC" and post v2 for a review as usual, or is it better to just >> hold off until net-next opens? > > Whichever you prefer, if you are uncertain about the next version and > want to speed things up with a review while waiting, then go with RFC, > but if you think all comments are resolved and the next version is ready > to be merged, wait for the reopening. > Thanks for asking! All right then, I gave RFC a try: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250528-vsock-test-inc-cov-v2-0-8f655b40d57c@rbox.co/ >>>>>>>> +static void test_stream_transport_uaf_client(const struct test_opts *opts) >>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>> + bool tested = false; >>>>>>>> + int cid; >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + for (cid = VMADDR_CID_HYPERVISOR; cid <= VMADDR_CID_HOST + 1; ++cid) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + tested |= test_stream_transport_uaf(cid); >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + if (!tested) >>>>>>>> + fprintf(stderr, "No transport tested\n"); >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> control_writeln("DONE"); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While we're at it, I think we can remove this message, looking at >>>>>>> run_tests() in util.c, we already have a barrier. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, sure. Note that console output gets slightly de-synchronised: server >>>>>> will immediately print next test's prompt and wait there. >>>>> >>>>> I see, however I don't have a strong opinion, you can leave it that way >>>>> if you prefer. >>>> >>>> How about adding a sync point to run_tests()? E.g. >>> >>> Yep, why not, of course in another series :-) >>> >>> And if you like, you can remove that specific sync point in that series >>> and check also other tests, but I think we have only that one. >> >> OK, I'll leave that for later. > > Yep, feel free to discard my suggestion, we can fix it later. I was thinking about doing a console-output-beautification series with: 1) drop the redundant sync in test_stream_transport_uaf_*, 2) add a sync in run_tests(). But I guess we can have the sync dropping part here. Definitely less churn this way. Thanks, Michal