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 3C26E628 for ; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 05:37:24 +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 74121268F; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by domac.alu.hr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33B7F601B6; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 07:37:19 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=alu.unizg.hr; s=mail; t=1686202639; bh=uTDCBRGWFZj2rXUOSuVG33tAlkl9SSqaEVboHArCRX0=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=DIB525C5/mnLgvTfiMOV8ndRKKSw3U8kOxi3esDwqNFfDJ8Rji5NXK9N6UaX250Z0 Drpa+Q+O2Blc3HzmU4IbqyyxzjFhJ8HAR2k4g4lzmTgv/7XILzJtrcJl1kPuM+/Gah gthOtpN5ciw0dJoRM/XOJ9R0cHhRC8bT80Z1x240MLZgsO/ZR1+9rr7x2IBi55XpMQ PeMgJlDZLK+drXIa7So1bv21m/DwCMnsQfCUuPP6K7AWhnbPhI9MkM4kEP4fcy3iBC AH+oGP69X0K+4dFuO6t5BgV0DJfMK2gyR0F7byOS+hVbpAeC2VmWH0EV94/BpDVia/ E7JBUrbQ8oOwg== 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 iL6RA8KfVPru; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 07:37:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (unknown [77.237.113.62]) by domac.alu.hr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 21D3B601B5; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 07:37:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=alu.unizg.hr; s=mail; t=1686202636; bh=uTDCBRGWFZj2rXUOSuVG33tAlkl9SSqaEVboHArCRX0=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=oy2IoqRo6QUb0OcyiqlYcMy+CEUdhR+sAs2IXEdF7ab+yDvgCRF3lPL0vEtPEBsGD 0kZWE4EP9ezZEBkzAsfe79tVhRiKgQPp7+muGz8aS5b2LGCGHMrN/g9v0G57tIhsHq 1NWePiXsacwZfLZo30Xew358qnGF7CUmXZR+Uv53BgAgTdxxhMX/q5Ai84MS2XGNBi wy8RNusufUdRdb8hLeVFEhy7L3Y908AsnNf1vvA4kIhrIYwWFoknIbPWg40F5ck/nr fz5+UmZeyGEiVaqJYoqKKUwpdq4NWAFV1m5Ob7Phxj/ZsPrzOhP5bHFGLuHYcLHmUM NeO4mugU2ieJg== Message-ID: <884d9eb7-0e8e-3e59-cf6d-2c6931da35ee@alu.unizg.hr> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 07:37:15 +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> 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 6/7/23 18:51, Guillaume Nault wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 12:04:52AM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote: >> I cannot tell if those are new for the architecture (Ubuntu 22.04 + AMD Ryzen) >> >> However, Ubuntu's unsigned 6.3.1 generic mainline kernel is also affected. >> So, it might seem like an old problem. >> >> (If you could isolate the exact tests, I could try a bisect.) >> >> [...] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP [ OK ] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback [ OK ] >> TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP [ OK ] >> [...] >> >> SYSCTL: net.ipv4.raw_l3mdev_accept=1 >> >> [...] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP [ OK ] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback [ OK ] >> TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP [ OK ] >> [...] >> >> Yes, just tested, w commit 42510dffd0e2 these are still present >> in fcnal-test.sh output: >> >> [...] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP [ OK ] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback [ OK ] >> TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP [ OK ] >> [...] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP [ OK ] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback [ OK ] >> TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] >> TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP [ OK ] >> [...] > > I have the same failures here. They don't seem to be recent. > I'll take a look. Certainly. I thought it might be something architecture-specific? I have reproduced it also on a Lenovo IdeaPad 3 with Ubuntu 22.10, but on Lenovo desktop with AlmaLinux 8.8 (CentOS fork), the result was "888/888 passed". 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? Thanks, Mirsad 74 ################################################################# 75 With VRF 76 77 SYSCTL: net.ipv4.raw_l3mdev_accept=1 78 79 TEST: ping out, VRF bind - ns-B IP [ OK ] 80 TEST: ping out, device bind - ns-B IP [ OK ] 81 TEST: ping out, vrf device + dev address bind - ns-B IP [ OK ] 82 TEST: ping out, vrf device + vrf address bind - ns-B IP [ OK ] 83 TEST: ping out, VRF bind - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 84 TEST: ping out, device bind - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 85 TEST: ping out, vrf device + dev address bind - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 86 TEST: ping out, vrf device + vrf address bind - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 87 TEST: ping in - ns-A IP [ OK ] 88 TEST: ping in - VRF IP [ OK ] 89 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP [ OK ] 90 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP [FAIL] 91 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback [ OK ] 92 TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] 93 TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP [ OK ] 94 TEST: ping local, device bind - loopback [ OK ] 95 TEST: ping out, vrf bind, blocked by rule - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 96 TEST: ping out, device bind, blocked by rule - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 97 TEST: ping in, blocked by rule - ns-A loopback IP [ OK ] 98 TEST: ping out, vrf bind, unreachable route - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 99 TEST: ping out, device bind, unreachable route - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 100 TEST: ping in, unreachable route - ns-A loopback IP [ OK ] 101 SYSCTL: net.ipv4.ping_group_range=0 2147483647 102 103 SYSCTL: net.ipv4.raw_l3mdev_accept=1 104 105 TEST: ping out, VRF bind - ns-B IP [ OK ] 106 TEST: ping out, device bind - ns-B IP [ OK ] 107 TEST: ping out, vrf device + dev address bind - ns-B IP [ OK ] 108 TEST: ping out, vrf device + vrf address bind - ns-B IP [ OK ] 109 TEST: ping out, VRF bind - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 110 TEST: ping out, device bind - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 111 TEST: ping out, vrf device + dev address bind - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 112 TEST: ping out, vrf device + vrf address bind - ns-B loopback IP [ OK ] 113 TEST: ping in - ns-A IP [ OK ] 114 TEST: ping in - VRF IP [ OK ] 115 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP [ OK ] 116 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP [FAIL] 117 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback [ OK ] 118 TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] 119 TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP [ OK ]