From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Xiao Yang Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 14:06:23 +0800 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] sctp/sctp_big_chunk.c: Add a hint on failure with EINVAL In-Reply-To: <36020c3f-4809-3334-df49-b0d35ecf6386@oracle.com> References: <1522924077-15028-1-git-send-email-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <5ACEFF0E.2030505@cn.fujitsu.com> <36020c3f-4809-3334-df49-b0d35ecf6386@oracle.com> Message-ID: <5ADAD4DF.1040906@cn.fujitsu.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it On 2018/04/12 19:15, Alexey Kodanev wrote: > On 12.04.2018 09:39, Xiao Yang wrote: >> On 2018/04/11 22:30, Alexey Kodanev wrote: >>> On 05.04.2018 13:27, Xiao Yang wrote: >>>> If two ipv6 addresses have same family, a buggy kernel(e.g. RHEL6) lacked >>>> the port check for them, and made this test get a failure with EINVAL: >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> safe_net.c:160: BROK: sctp_big_chunk.c:77: setsockopt(4, 132, 100, 0x7ffdbaac83a0, 91644) failed: EINVAL >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> If you want to know detailed info for the bug, please see the following commit: >>>> '40b4f0f (sctp: lack the check for ports in sctp_v6_cmp_addr)' >>>> >>>> We just want to hint users about the likely cause of the failure. >>> I guess, the test will fail with EINVAL with this patch, >>> >>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/897172/ >>> >>> it tries to avoid the check with ports so it won't be possible >>> to pass the same addresses like the test does, it is currently >>> in ML. >> Hi Alexey, >> >> Thanks for your explanation. >> >> Before commit 40b4f0f, it also failed with EINVAL because of the same ipv6 addresses. >> Do you want to apply the first version of the test? >> > Hi Xiao, > > Not sure, may be we could just use a raw socket on the client > instead. And the easiest solution would be to return TCONF in > this case. Any other ideas? Hi Alexey, I tried to use a raw socket on the client, but failed to bind the same ipv6 addresses. I am not familiar with SOCK_RAW, so could you tell me detailed steps to use it. Beside, can we add different ipv6 addresses by modifying this existed test? Thanks, Xiao Yang > Thanks, > Alexey > > >