Skip to content

example(uffd): handle EAGAIN from UFFDIO_ZEROPAGE #5224

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 27, 2025

Conversation

roypat
Copy link
Contributor

@roypat roypat commented May 27, 2025

Changes

If a remove event is pending to be read from the uffd, then all uffdio ioctls return EAGAIN. We correctly handle this for COPY, but did not for ZEROPAGE. Also handle this for zeropage to fix spurious test failures.

See commit e92a7ff ("fix(example): correctly handle remove events in uffd exammple") for more details.

License Acceptance

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under
the terms of the Apache 2.0 license. For more information on following Developer
Certificate of Origin and signing off your commits, please check
CONTRIBUTING.md.

PR Checklist

  • I have read and understand CONTRIBUTING.md.
  • I have run tools/devtool checkstyle to verify that the PR passes the
    automated style checks.
  • I have described what is done in these changes, why they are needed, and
    how they are solving the problem in a clear and encompassing way.
  • I have updated any relevant documentation (both in code and in the docs)
    in the PR.
  • I have mentioned all user-facing changes in CHANGELOG.md.
  • If a specific issue led to this PR, this PR closes the issue.
  • When making API changes, I have followed the
    Runbook for Firecracker API changes.
  • I have tested all new and changed functionalities in unit tests and/or
    integration tests.
  • I have linked an issue to every new TODO.

  • This functionality cannot be added in rust-vmm.

If a remove event is pending to be read from the uffd, then all uffdio
ioctls return EAGAIN. We correctly handle this for COPY, but did not for
ZEROPAGE. Also handle this for zeropage to fix spurious test failures.

See commit e92a7ff ("fix(example): correctly handle `remove` events
in uffd exammple") for more details.

Signed-off-by: Patrick Roy <roypat@amazon.co.uk>
Copy link

codecov bot commented May 27, 2025

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.93%. Comparing base (0e1eb81) to head (14f57bc).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5224      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   82.88%   82.93%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         250      250              
  Lines       26936    26936              
==========================================
+ Hits        22325    22339      +14     
+ Misses       4611     4597      -14     
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-c5n.metal 83.37% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m5n.metal 83.37% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6a.metal 82.59% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m6g.metal 79.19% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 83.37% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m7a.metal-48xl 82.57% <ø> (?)
5.10-m7g.metal 79.19% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7i.metal-24xl 83.33% <ø> (?)
5.10-m7i.metal-48xl 83.33% <ø> (?)
5.10-m8g.metal-24xl 79.19% <ø> (?)
5.10-m8g.metal-48xl 79.19% <ø> (?)
6.1-c5n.metal 83.42% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 83.42% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6a.metal 82.63% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6g.metal 79.19% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6i.metal 83.41% <ø> (+0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7a.metal-48xl 82.62% <ø> (?)
6.1-m7g.metal 79.19% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7i.metal-24xl 83.43% <ø> (?)
6.1-m7i.metal-48xl 83.43% <ø> (?)
6.1-m8g.metal-24xl 79.18% <ø> (?)
6.1-m8g.metal-48xl 79.19% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
  • ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

@roypat roypat added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label May 27, 2025
@roypat roypat merged commit 6417786 into firecracker-microvm:main May 27, 2025
7 of 8 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants