From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (lindbergh.monkeyblade.net [23.128.96.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FAB8EAF8 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 20:11:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from domac.alu.hr (domac.alu.unizg.hr [IPv6:2001:b68:2:2800::3]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 020D31BC; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 13:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by domac.alu.hr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1FF60304; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 22:10:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=alu.unizg.hr; s=mail; t=1686859845; bh=uukwmcuMYyFo0+uF/3NGwM7VYyyngg3AIaPUOReXkV8=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=HH2qoWkoKpWC5a5ltWnDz8kJiFKyq0nBa6RF7kKfZtDw8N3lDZKUnURqquNsKebg3 AqqxW4gYuMYvZjp1ELlumQNpV0bp28x1cObTAhW4/zISJ61GQFsG4DKqwBAEMJBHod SNYyI37EMYIRJNVMUJuOgwj/iQOrkgIROJZzY5m3qS+bbhJTLE72+54eCnwMNqU0kB cnBp/uBdKR7kSe9DngY5ubXuYUchQ13wxYBGnlFgYaGiT1QuOwnCNrAoAiUgFTN1Xj 0DjTrOvwe/isXOJZQgR3iNxdjnOjCXEb+EP9+FxpMua8oVtEjbRhXdhTdbq1C0iQZE 6P9qbtVA+4PRA== X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at domac.alu.hr Received: from domac.alu.hr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (domac.alu.hr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z5yJhetaoLVu; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 22:10:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [94.250.191.183]) by domac.alu.hr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BAF1260303; Thu, 15 Jun 2023 22:10:42 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=alu.unizg.hr; s=mail; t=1686859843; bh=uukwmcuMYyFo0+uF/3NGwM7VYyyngg3AIaPUOReXkV8=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=UaDmI+vN/XSjRDZc4BsRC2qXr8H50gp48GJoXxMUcyeTqwj0Ze8Q0kIgoKfNTPgs9 e9nbpmZt6bXatFGlIhvsC4JPRxZB342NRIZ5aJ+5gmp0VJSMiIGHFzwk66ARmBd4zu vutqwmIXwzTgS/O4zQ7919zeFAuONOjM5f/7tUvLnd61m0pqwm2HNq+PgO9aJJTtsB 5KfwcQVS2hGkkySw+/2ka2/I8r8xBz/GDRL1b+6rkdudq9m0Uk2FRK5Tor8+yk4JA3 lsSr0TmXkyBbezM/A4JSwg3CQwY2kms//onp8gPENGF8iLh+V3pV+jOrk3HpQ6zk5z ZNq2Lhvc3M8vQ== Message-ID: <2d129924-d8c7-0aab-2766-950042b7a801@alu.unizg.hr> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 22:10:42 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: POSSIBLE BUG: selftests/net/fcnal-test.sh: [FAIL][FIX TESTED] in vrf "bind - ns-B IPv6 LLA" test Content-Language: en-US To: Guillaume Nault Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <48cfd903-ad2f-7da7-e5a6-a22392dc8650@alu.unizg.hr> <884d9eb7-0e8e-3e59-cf6d-2c6931da35ee@alu.unizg.hr> From: Mirsad Goran Todorovac In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net On 6/14/23 10:47, Guillaume Nault wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 08:04:02PM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote: >> This also works on the Lenovo IdeaPad 3 Ubuntu 22.10 laptop, but on the AlmaLinux 8.8 >> Lenovo desktop I have a problem: >> >> [root@pc-mtodorov net]# grep FAIL ../fcnal-test-4.log >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] >> [root@pc-mtodorov net]# >> >> Kernel is the recent one: >> >> [root@pc-mtodorov net]# uname -rms >> Linux 6.4.0-rc5-testnet-00003-g5b23878f7ed9 x86_64 >> [root@pc-mtodorov net]# > > Maybe a problem with the ping version used by the distribution. > You can try "./fcnal-test.sh -t ipv4_ping -p -v" to view the commands > run and make the script stop when there's a test failure (so that you > can see the ping output and try your own commands in the testing > environment). Thank you for taking the time for the reply. And thanks for the hint. But I am sort of on ebb tide on this. It would be good to have the test run on both versions of Linux to test the actual kernel faults. Maybe pack a version of ping command w the test? But I cannot deploy too much time in this. I hope then the upgrade AlmaLinux 8.8 -> 9.x (or CentOS clones in general) would solve the issue, but it is not guaranteed, and I would lose bisect to the old kernels. Which is why I do not upgrade to the latest releases in the first place. :-/ If it is just the AlmaLinux ping, then it is just an exotic distro, but it is a CentOS clone, so the issue might exist in the more popular Rocky, too. I am not sure what is the right way to do in this case or I would already have done it. Presumptuous maybe, but true. >>>> However, I have a question: >>>> >>>> In the ping + "With VRF" section, the tests with net.ipv4.raw_l3mdev_accept=1 >>>> are repeated twice, while "No VRF" section has the versions: >>>> >>>> SYSCTL: net.ipv4.raw_l3mdev_accept=0 >>>> >>>> and >>>> >>>> SYSCTL: net.ipv4.raw_l3mdev_accept=1 >>>> >>>> The same happens with the IPv6 ping tests. >>>> >>>> In that case, it could be that we have only 2 actual FAIL cases, >>>> because the error is reported twice. >>>> >>>> Is this intentional? >>> >>> I don't know why the non-VRF tests are run once with raw_l3mdev_accept=0 >>> and once with raw_l3mdev_accept=1. Unless I'm missing something, this >>> option shouldn't affect non-VRF users. Maybe the objective is to make >>> sure that it really doesn't affect them. David certainly knows better. >> >> The problem appears to be that non-VRF tests are being ran with >> raw_l3mdev_accept={0|1}, while VRF tests w raw_l3mdev_accept={1|1} ... > > The reason the VRF tests run twice is to test both raw and ping sockets > (using the "net.ipv4.ping_group_range" sysctl). It doesn't seem anyone > ever intended to run the VRF tests with raw_l3mdev_accept=0. > > Only the non-VRF tests were intended to be tested with > raw_l3mdev_accept=0 (see commit c032dd8cc7e2 ("selftests: Add ipv4 ping > tests to fcnal-test")). But I have no idea why. Well, you are not to blame if it is not documented. This thing doesn't come out of the testsuite save by prayer and fasting, I'm afraid ;-) Best regards, Mirsad