Parameters were created using wrong C types, which caused them to be of
wrong size on some architectures, causing problems.

The problem with SO_RCVLOWAT was found on s390 (big endian), while x86-64
didn't show it. After the fix, all tests pass on s390.
Then Stefano Garzarella pointed out that SO_VM_SOCKETS_* calls might have
a similar problem, which turned out to be true, hence, the second patch.

Changes for v6:
- rework the patch #3 to avoid creating a new file for new functions,
and exclude vsock_perf from calling the new functions.
- add "Reviewed-by:" to the patch #2.
Changes for v5:
- in the patch #2 replace the introduced uint64_t with unsigned long long
to match documentation
- add a patch #3 that verifies every setsockopt() call.
Changes for v4:
- add "Reviewed-by:" to the first patch, and add a second patch fixing
SO_VM_SOCKETS_* calls, which depends on the first one (hence, it's now
a patch series.)
Changes for v3:
- fix the same problem in vsock_perf and update commit message
Changes for v2:
- add "Fixes:" lines to the commit message

Konstantin Shkolnyy (3):
  vsock/test: fix failures due to wrong SO_RCVLOWAT parameter
  vsock/test: fix parameter types in SO_VM_SOCKETS_* calls
  vsock/test: verify socket options after setting them

 tools/testing/vsock/control.c             |   9 +-
 tools/testing/vsock/msg_zerocopy_common.c |  10 --
 tools/testing/vsock/msg_zerocopy_common.h |   1 -
 tools/testing/vsock/util.c                | 144 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 tools/testing/vsock/util.h                |   7 ++
 tools/testing/vsock/vsock_perf.c          |  20 ++-
 tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test.c          |  73 +++++------
 tools/testing/vsock/vsock_test_zerocopy.c |   2 +-
 tools/testing/vsock/vsock_uring_test.c    |   2 +-
 9 files changed, 204 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.1

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 08:35:54AM -0600, Konstantin Shkolnyy wrote:
>Parameters were created using wrong C types, which caused them to be of
>wrong size on some architectures, causing problems.
>
>The problem with SO_RCVLOWAT was found on s390 (big endian), while x86-64
>didn't show it. After the fix, all tests pass on s390.
>Then Stefano Garzarella pointed out that SO_VM_SOCKETS_* calls might have
>a similar problem, which turned out to be true, hence, the second patch.
>
>Changes for v6:
>- rework the patch #3 to avoid creating a new file for new functions,
>and exclude vsock_perf from calling the new functions.
>- add "Reviewed-by:" to the patch #2.
>Changes for v5:
>- in the patch #2 replace the introduced uint64_t with unsigned long long
>to match documentation
>- add a patch #3 that verifies every setsockopt() call.
>Changes for v4:
>- add "Reviewed-by:" to the first patch, and add a second patch fixing
>SO_VM_SOCKETS_* calls, which depends on the first one (hence, it's now
>a patch series.)
>Changes for v3:
>- fix the same problem in vsock_perf and update commit message
>Changes for v2:
>- add "Fixes:" lines to the commit message
>
>Konstantin Shkolnyy (3):
>  vsock/test: fix failures due to wrong SO_RCVLOWAT parameter
>  vsock/test: fix parameter types in SO_VM_SOCKETS_* calls
>  vsock/test: verify socket options after setting them

Sorry, this series is marked as "Not applicable" [1] since we forgot to 
target a netdev tree (net/net-next) that we usually use for vsock tests.

Please can you send a v7 (carrying my R-b) targeting the net tree?

You need to rebase on top of net tree and use the "net" tag (e.g.  
[PATCH net]), more details here:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/maintainer-netdev.html
Let me know if you need more help with that.

Thanks,
Stefano

[1] 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?series=909319&archive=both&state=*