From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from orbyte.nwl.cc (orbyte.nwl.cc [151.80.46.58]) (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 C4FB7383 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:01:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=151.80.46.58 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730847671; cv=none; b=cRM9eUQeiSz1GNT3RA0CPQQHFvlYpKiucD7xdqyumawx3rcjMKBMzGaPeB4vT5QhQSB5eBAYRisMbIOB+9A9zaGYAO+KITl8lUq0IkDCsjnOMvTPNiCBOJ98TGkPtf9Zl1hb1qIDhlRsRJTFEdxxmALfwp4GGUuVjEdtG1+6Z/k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730847671; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WdmORGOKEA+BUruFsUDNpxCIwtVkPTkSnXnycp2hDpU=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ilXILqewGHX3Ry/ZrttFouajJeS4cPYwSHKYSrZ+F9oqOXC2m4o/eYN2UE20kRS+4HmmSptjDULf0Jd5TTUgxlDiLp8yW48YSknVwHnon+Yr+wFBipTitp1qmhNbLemdDInqeTHyrkNqv0DuXRLfHBzLx2IczZN30090IMhvIwQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nwl.cc; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nwl.cc; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nwl.cc header.i=@nwl.cc header.b=ngpE/BJr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=151.80.46.58 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nwl.cc Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nwl.cc Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nwl.cc header.i=@nwl.cc header.b="ngpE/BJr" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nwl.cc; s=mail2022; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=3R+jHNvD0Y/4bdTd1x99NEP6mjHSLFyBLjgKAAURtN4=; b=ngpE/BJrE47dy5eo+D6NjCw+fE ofAWUZXdrPdDg9rwyNqLfoFPLhN7+SG+YkZaohPRdZUpFc1pU4w6MyDc7qkdJxj4MGcigaP9J0ij4 /O7zBM4Go+D4IqjBoItVnsmfI5HEju8lcORy2ECFo3DBkIWyj8DdSWrXXdPkU1O3VGUdj9P17TtUw FPwQHFelKVWwWzANP/D9IiZaUMqHfXTDuUf98DsdXeWgWahxF4sS75fOGjuXuh0trkdVD0V/1k6qV fD51ig8ltG8tFyF6ZB5RpuqrKukSfmWLxY6L9tgtSEDC2S1BlcHSALgxXvQS9RxWaXHZX+BRf63dV qpYuLHEg==; Received: from n0-1 by orbyte.nwl.cc with local (Exim 4.97.1) (envelope-from ) id 1t8SXq-000000005IQ-3Ybe; Wed, 06 Nov 2024 00:01:06 +0100 Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 00:01:06 +0100 From: Phil Sutter To: Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, fw@strlen.de Subject: Re: [PATCH iptables] tests: iptables-test: extend coverage for ip6tables Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Phil Sutter , Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, fw@strlen.de References: <20241020224707.69249-1-pablo@netfilter.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 01:03:10PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 05:07:25PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 04:55:33PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 03:48:12PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 03:08:01PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 02:30:58PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > - With your patch applied, 20 rules fail (in both variants). Is this > > > > > > expected or a bug on my side? > > > > > > > > > > OK, so most failures are caused by my test kernel not having > > > > > CONFIG_IP_VS_IPV6 enabled. > > > > > > > > > > Apart from that, there is a minor bug in introduced libip6t_recent.t in > > > > > that it undoes commit d859b91e6f3ed ("extensions: recent: New kernels > > > > > support 999 hits") by accident. More interesting though, it's reported > > > > > twice, once for fast mode and once for normal mode. I'll see how I can > > > > > turn off error reporting in fast mode, failing tests are repeated > > > > > anyway. > > > > > > > > Would you point me to the relevant line in the libip6t_recent.t? > > > > > > It is in line 7, I had changed the supposed-to-fail --hitcount value of > > > 999 to 65536. > > > > This was already fixed in v2, correct? > > Ah, you're right. I didn't notice your v2. > > If you're OK with it, I'll apply your v3 with the following changes: > - Describe 'iptables' param in _run_test_file() > - Drop duplicate 'endswith' test from _run_test_file() > - Print results with command name suffixed for libxt tests (it is more > consistent wrt. tests count) Patch applied with mentioned changes. Thanks!