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 BAF79111AE for ; Mon, 8 May 2023 19:45:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp-fw-6002.amazon.com (smtp-fw-6002.amazon.com [52.95.49.90]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D3977D9E; Mon, 8 May 2023 12:45:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amazon.com; i=@amazon.com; q=dns/txt; s=amazon201209; t=1683575126; x=1715111126; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IdlXveSBrEnzAvq8Ep4fSHWjmFryj36YE8R7HO/fYGU=; b=UDAgRtXbNTYVJZxHFmpHG7ilTHjxsMhpjxvI0Owe/s32ACYi/uAEEFcA mrw11b668/S4cI/XkBaI/ZVLf4J9Gt4eqTaQUR2x4x8sF+ZAeL7sDwQVI sIMtflWjnhJ5tKHeIRz2lZS518sp3xdu9oZ9S8QGtoQ+OyesI+IFg7e5r k=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.99,259,1677542400"; d="scan'208";a="327316451" Received: from iad12-co-svc-p1-lb1-vlan3.amazon.com (HELO email-inbound-relay-iad-1e-m6i4x-3554bfcf.us-east-1.amazon.com) ([10.43.8.6]) by smtp-border-fw-6002.iad6.amazon.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 May 2023 19:44:20 +0000 Received: from EX19MTAUWB002.ant.amazon.com (iad12-ws-svc-p26-lb9-vlan2.iad.amazon.com [10.40.163.34]) by email-inbound-relay-iad-1e-m6i4x-3554bfcf.us-east-1.amazon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A43D81040; Mon, 8 May 2023 19:44:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) by EX19MTAUWB002.ant.amazon.com (10.250.64.231) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.26; Mon, 8 May 2023 19:44:16 +0000 Received: from 88665a182662.ant.amazon.com (10.187.170.41) by EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1118.26; Mon, 8 May 2023 19:44:14 +0000 From: Kuniyuki Iwashima To: , CC: , , , , , , , Subject: Re: Regression Issue Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 12:44:06 -0700 Message-ID: <20230508194406.73759-1-kuniyu@amazon.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 In-Reply-To: <20230508123138.41b5dc48@kernel.org> References: <20230508123138.41b5dc48@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [10.187.170.41] X-ClientProxiedBy: EX19D033UWC002.ant.amazon.com (10.13.139.196) To EX19D004ANA001.ant.amazon.com (10.37.240.138) Precedence: Bulk X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, T_SPF_PERMERROR autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net From: Jakub Kicinski Date: Mon, 8 May 2023 12:31:38 -0700 > 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? Yes, we had the same report [0] and fixed with this patch [1], and it seems to be backported to v6.1.21 and v6.2.8, not v6.0.y (EOL). [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/e21bf153-80b0-9ec0-15ba-e04a4ad42c34@redhat.com/ [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20230312031904.4674-2-kuniyu@amazon.com/ [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/?q=tcp%3A+Fix+bind%28%29+conflict+check+for+dual-stack+wildcard+address.