Skip to content

Conversation

bchalios
Copy link
Contributor

@bchalios bchalios commented Sep 17, 2025

Changes

Change test_failing_filter to catch all types of exceptions when trying to start a microVM.

Reason

We intermittently get failures in this test while destroying the microVM object given to us by the fixture. That code checks that the microVM was not killed due to a signal and in this case, it clearly has (that's the intention of the test). The test itself is marking the microVM as killed so the cleanup logic should never reach that check.

The only way that kill() fails in this case is when test_microvm.mark_killed() (the last command in this test) is never called, meaning that the test errors out before that. I believe that the only point in the code that can cause the test to exit earlier is this:

try:
    test_microvm.start()
except requests.exceptions.ConnectionError:
    pass

We are expecting test_microvm.start() to fail due to seccomp violations, however we are only catching the ConnectionError exception. If any other exception is raised the test will fail pre-maturely without setting test_microvm.mark_killed(). In fact, looking at the backtrace from intermittent errors it looks like the code
is actually raising a ConnectionResetError.

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 checkbuild --all to verify that the PR passes
    build checks on all supported architectures.
  • 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.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 17, 2025

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 82.79%. Comparing base (dcfc4c1) to head (57f76b5).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5444   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   82.79%   82.79%           
=======================================
  Files         263      263           
  Lines       27301    27301           
=======================================
  Hits        22603    22603           
  Misses       4698     4698           
Flag Coverage Δ
5.10-m5n.metal 82.97% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6a.metal 82.22% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6g.metal 79.57% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m6i.metal 82.97% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7a.metal-48xl 82.22% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m7g.metal 79.57% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m7i.metal-24xl 82.94% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
5.10-m7i.metal-48xl 82.94% <ø> (ø)
5.10-m8g.metal-24xl 79.57% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
5.10-m8g.metal-48xl 79.57% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m5n.metal 83.02% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m6a.metal 82.27% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m6g.metal 79.57% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m6i.metal 83.01% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m7a.metal-48xl 82.25% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m7g.metal 79.56% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️
6.1-m7i.metal-24xl 83.02% <ø> (+<0.01%) ⬆️
6.1-m7i.metal-48xl 83.01% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m8g.metal-24xl 79.57% <ø> (ø)
6.1-m8g.metal-48xl 79.56% <ø> (-0.01%) ⬇️

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.

@bchalios bchalios marked this pull request as ready for review September 17, 2025 12:13
@bchalios bchalios added the Status: Awaiting review Indicates that a pull request is ready to be reviewed label Sep 17, 2025
We intermittently get failures in this test while destroying the microVM
object given to us by the fixture. That code checks that the microVM was
not killed due to a signal and in this case, it clearly has (that's the
intention of the test). The test itself is marking the microVM as killed
so the cleanup logic should never reach that check.

The only way that kill() fails in this case is when
test_microvm.mark_killed() (the last command in this test) is never
called, meaning that the test errors out before that. I believe that the
only point in the code that can cause the test to exit earlier is this:

```
try:
    test_microvm.start()
except requests.exceptions.ConnectionError:
    pass
```

We are expecting test_microvm.start() to fail due to seccomp violations,
however we are only catching the ConnectionError exception. If any other
exception is raised the test will fail pre-maturely without setting
test_microvm.mark_killed(). In fact, looking at the backtrace from
intermittent failures it looks like the code is actually raising a
ConnectionResetError.

Change the test to catch any error, rather than just ConnectionError.

Signed-off-by: Babis Chalios <[email protected]>
@bchalios bchalios force-pushed the fix_test_custom_seccomp branch from 09adbae to 57f76b5 Compare September 18, 2025 08:47
@bchalios bchalios enabled auto-merge (rebase) September 18, 2025 08:58
@bchalios bchalios merged commit 7d61a0c into firecracker-microvm:main Sep 18, 2025
7 checks passed
@bchalios bchalios deleted the fix_test_custom_seccomp branch September 18, 2025 10:08
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