From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D0A4C43334 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 02:58:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234391AbiFRC6q (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2022 22:58:46 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34666 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237911AbiFRC6V (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2022 22:58:21 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1917B38DA9; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 19:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A0661F5D; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 02:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A81BCC3411B; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 02:58:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1655521098; bh=te/1XpkUNmq6MV9BQThN7XRjwLAPokCR7ABtjmsHLyI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uZUuup+U1ZMaEej/wdCOMPftyUvTw9k+De0Cv1SbNdXgd7oNZpnBaEmvXcPjNsVxU 7URtzG1KUDLCsru2yB4oY+vYt32Sseg2s5qYAQGwuiOFdi9WdZVggcoq0JIo5nmNYk ELL4c/0HBun5HmnrxCFHZmdNHkrRBAswUsxJXrpUDyILrXODC5DZrfiuc9uvMDrqgq KHMU6onBxjlK9hOxkhrudZ/m9QL1jKP+Erzco3roJZM/07gdvFX6m/7oRgRRu19VIs DKhXJFVJI+DmVHOnFkdVv+M9ApOg1+WPGo6S6tEf/Jy74XQtgtLpX3XLPJt7y3ZnG6 G98Nyh0ELTf5g== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 19:58:16 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: "Riccardo Paolo Bestetti" Cc: , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: NEEDS FIXING - Was: Re: [PATCH v2] ipv4: ping: fix bind address validity check Message-ID: <20220617195816.53a2f2cf@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20220617085435.193319-1-pbl@bestov.io> <165546541315.12170.9716012665055247467.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 02:32:55 +0200 Riccardo Paolo Bestetti wrote: > I receompiled the kernel from the net tree to do some more manual testing > on the patch and I have two things to disclose. Sorry for the caps in > the subject. > > TL;DR: I noticed that one of the regressions tests is (correctly) > failing, but for the wrong reasons; and the patch I sent contains a > mistake, and unfortunately it has already been applied to the tree as > commit b4a028c4d0. > > Long version below. > > 1) If you run regression tests with -v, the (correct -- see below) ICMP > tests for broadcast and multicast binding do not fail with > EADDRNOTAVAIL, but with ACCES, but only when run through fcnal-test.sh. > This is also true for one of the additional (commented out) tests you > can find in my patch following this email. I'm not sure why this > happens; however I'm reasonably convinced it is a quirk or a consequence > of the testing methodology/setup. Can anyone offer any insights? > > 2) My patch is faulty. I had a complete and tested patch, including code > fixing the regression. Instead of sending it, however, I decided to > adapt it to preserve Carlos Llamas' version of ping.c, since they posted > their patch first. In doing so I used a work branch which contained a > faulty version (wrong flags) of the regression tests. The resulting > faulty patch is, unfortunately, currently in the tree. > > At this point, due to the unfortunate combination of (1) and (2), it > might be worth reverting the patch altogether and just applying the v1 > (i.e. without the regression tests) to the tree and to the relevant LTS > versions. IIUC only the test is faulty / unreliable, correct? We have until Thursday before this patch hits Linus's tree so should be plenty of time to figure the problem out and apply an incremental fix. I see you posted an RFC already, thanks! > After that, a more proper discussion can be had about (1), and the > regression tests can be fixed. I'm sending a demonstrative patch for > that as a response to this message.