From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 19C4A4411; Mon, 8 May 2023 19:31:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57451C433EF; Mon, 8 May 2023 19:31:39 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1683574299; bh=ExRISVDr1K/0HWPIFK891BNriyNmHm2JbnQTSgzT60g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ih6hkwv0imCLFPVdHSzwIBVhby/5mKzhMHy8QZv1VyQa5W6CxnBa96892V3z5YHvY oc3ROMyRwG47Uc7ZoS0zHTTnGIRf88APg2U6QFdL9W1D5e5LXAypeC1VYkyAJ26WL1 fovlEbcZ2a8YMkrSVlAEIvOXUb3Njh3uaCjlgRXthxyZhP6eJUhPTD5+EgJMAnaQcV VAIrosQHUEGNeCFWzkqImGTsNYVUoMz36jxcCZPeIbH0MTzeodRTbOr7aQS1LmmyT0 RlB+YYBzj2DYzW/u6K6zkoVbQ/ctsMLgwVsg9ptN8oEjUgRVXDziKcLa1ALqpZk7+L T0sV3380glgRg== Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 12:31:38 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: "Rai, Anjali" , Kuniyuki Iwashima Cc: Greg KH , "joannelkoong@gmail.com" , "regressions@lists.linux.dev" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , "Gandhi, Jinen" , "Qin, Kailun" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Regression Issue Message-ID: <20230508123138.41b5dc48@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <2023050851-trapper-preshow-2e4c@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 8 May 2023 08:27:49 +0000 Rai, Anjali wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2023 at 07:33:58AM +0000, Rai, Anjali wrote: >>> > We have one test which test the functionality of "using the same >>> > loopback address and port for both IPV6 and IPV4", The test should >>> > result in EADDRINUSE for binding IPv4 to same port, but it was >>> > successful >>> > >>> > Test Description: >>> > The test creates sockets for both IPv4 and IPv6, and forces IPV6 to >>> > listen for both IPV4 and IPV6 connections; this in turn makes binding >>> > another (IPV4) socket on the same port meaningless and results in >>> > -EADDRINUSE >>> > >>> > Our systems had Kernel v6.0.9 and the test was successfully executing, we recently upgraded our systems to v6.2, and we saw this as a failure. The systems which are not upgraded, there it is still passing. >>> > >>> > We don't exactly at which point this test broke, but our assumption is >>> > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/28044fc1d4953b07acec0da4d2fc4 >>> > 784c57ea6fb >>> >>> Is there a specific reason you did not add cc: for the authors of that commit? >>> >>> > Can you please check on your end whether this is an actual regression of a feature request. >>> >>> If you revert that commit, does it resolve the issue? Have you worked with the Intel networking developers to help debug this further? > > I am part of Gramine OpenSource Project, I don't know someone from > > Intel Networking developers team, if you know someone, please feel > > free to add them. > > > > Building completely linux source code and trying with different > > commits, I will not be able to do it today, I can check that may be > > tomorrow or day after. > > The C code was passing earlier, and output was " test completed > successfully" but now with v6.2 it is failing and returning > "bind(ipv4) was successful even though there is no IPV6_V6ONLY on > same port\n" Adding the mailing list and the experts. Cleaning up the quoting, please don't top post going forward. Kuniyuki, have we seen this before?