On 5/28/25 11:08, Stefano Garzarella wrote:

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 10:58:28AM +0200, Michal Luczaj wrote:

quoted

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/ (local)

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+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)

quoted

+		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