Add a (currently disabled) regression test for #1341

[stevenengler]

We should enable this test when we fix #1341. Adding this test now since it was already written and it will probably be a while before we fix the issue.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 67.65% // Head: 66.91% // Decreases project coverage by -0.73% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (8d9178c) compared to base (58b450b).
Patch coverage: 1.66% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2524      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   67.65%   66.91%   -0.74%     
==========================================
  Files         190      191       +1     
  Lines       28106    28178      +72     
  Branches     5554     5578      +24     
==========================================
- Hits        19014    18856     -158     
- Misses       4668     4938     +270     
+ Partials     4424     4384      -40     

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	66.91% <1.66%> (-0.74%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/test/regression/1341/test_regression_1341.rs	1.66% <1.66%> (ø)
src/main/host/syscall/handler/eventfd.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (-68.58%)	⬇️
src/main/host/descriptor/eventfd.rs	0.00% <0.00%> (-64.65%)	⬇️
src/main/host/syscall/handler/ioctl.rs	24.24% <0.00%> (-27.28%)	⬇️
src/main/host/syscall/handler/unistd.rs	55.79% <0.00%> (-15.46%)	⬇️
src/main/host/syscall/handler/fcntl.rs	50.00% <0.00%> (-11.77%)	⬇️
src/main/host/syscall/handler/time.rs	58.53% <0.00%> (-7.32%)	⬇️
src/main/host/syscall/handler/mod.rs	77.14% <0.00%> (-7.15%)	⬇️
src/main/host/descriptor/socket/mod.rs	42.16% <0.00%> (-7.13%)	⬇️
src/main/host/descriptor/descriptor_table.rs	80.48% <0.00%> (-2.44%)	⬇️
... and 14 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[sporksmith]

Maybe worth having a second test here where the receiver takes too long to process packets, s.t. packets do get dropped? Maybe a nanosleep after processing each packet...? I'd expect such a test to pass now, but we'd want to be careful not to make it start failing when fixing #1341.