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 A5059369 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 08:47:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC1981BC6 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:47:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1686732440; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=zKa17mcJ3JZO5ohKJLfi/PuyyQC704/6NuVAqrSjVLw=; b=FwmACezJ80yQoojryPtWqNZ/pNc48Zudx9JF6hk4eDRRJViykV378IB+rPpreTmGrSXMRg caQbumgUw82roN2MBvc/7o8mPE6iq1VOyA+W4wD1KhayuiGeBotQwbl+W+NPVXr6wpo1Ao ctISFMLGKLlcsVNLxcz2BnMX22Sf14U= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-586-ctl6RBgrOIGsDZJK7FvzuA-1; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 04:47:19 -0400 X-MC-Unique: ctl6RBgrOIGsDZJK7FvzuA-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-3f7e7cfcae4so3569845e9.1 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:47:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686732438; x=1689324438; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=zKa17mcJ3JZO5ohKJLfi/PuyyQC704/6NuVAqrSjVLw=; b=beK9357YD2bgLohEYP+pSiBE5ETnU7SPGzbMJ7Wxc+ttkImH51+189S+jYGYs0l9Tw 1tpHvlJ7MTHUP9qz/HpwiETWsLbi74rIQVWXYvYQZpQg0MHF8rOooSzMvdGETzimtOWr PBtL0uefmXKCGtmcQ2GQ+hVMAr+03HFaE+FDGWa88c6GzQJzZTtCagjeTUVoVR6SyX8X vEiH5DP1nMS5nM2hBN7JwM6VXrAmtigHKhmg1ZS0l+VIY3OOClLjUd7a878SSJ3kI1Y1 eW9Fp6flCXll8bLIeQOggaNRZfJHILpmzak+pTv30mhYWxnAW8F/ALJiwCVF8XcbxvO8 QWSg== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxUh0XbvmW/Xexbfg4hVkrsaAYxRkD+3kjx7YLz58N+qOEvGhSw /hsVmzzl7QQYBxzrt2yZgTqp9/x3PXM05HoZQMyo0/FMV4QuvA4ph7QMtuzUPWgYmBIiW68tXh+ O4THHLIehBwgpzHli X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c7c6:0:b0:3f7:dfdf:36ce with SMTP id z6-20020a7bc7c6000000b003f7dfdf36cemr11707245wmk.9.1686732438396; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:47:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ6Z8YuuOGNs6Hj04dXo4iS3Q8t38rLYcTbaUG4CGkcr2jU5sVUgPGIIdof9BgkDzKPkajtuCg== X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c7c6:0:b0:3f7:dfdf:36ce with SMTP id z6-20020a7bc7c6000000b003f7dfdf36cemr11707228wmk.9.1686732437995; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:47:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from debian (2a01cb058d652b0004dec95078ab8527.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb05:8d65:2b00:4de:c950:78ab:8527]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y10-20020a1c4b0a000000b003f5ffba9ae1sm16824117wma.24.2023.06.14.01.47.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 14 Jun 2023 01:47:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 10:47:15 +0200 From: Guillaume Nault To: Mirsad Goran Todorovac 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 Subject: Re: POSSIBLE BUG: selftests/net/fcnal-test.sh: [FAIL][FIX TESTED] in vrf "bind - ns-B IPv6 LLA" test Message-ID: References: <48cfd903-ad2f-7da7-e5a6-a22392dc8650@alu.unizg.hr> <884d9eb7-0e8e-3e59-cf6d-2c6931da35ee@alu.unizg.hr> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 Sat, Jun 10, 2023 at 08:04:02PM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote: > This also works on the Lenovo IdeaPad 3 Ubuntu 22.10 laptop, but on the AlmaLinux 8.8 > Lenovo desktop I have a problem: > > [root@pc-mtodorov net]# grep FAIL ../fcnal-test-4.log > TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] > TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP [FAIL] > TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] > TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] > TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP [FAIL] > TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP [FAIL] > [root@pc-mtodorov net]# > > Kernel is the recent one: > > [root@pc-mtodorov net]# uname -rms > Linux 6.4.0-rc5-testnet-00003-g5b23878f7ed9 x86_64 > [root@pc-mtodorov net]# Maybe a problem with the ping version used by the distribution. You can try "./fcnal-test.sh -t ipv4_ping -p -v" to view the commands run and make the script stop when there's a test failure (so that you can see the ping output and try your own commands in the testing environment). > > > 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? > > > > I don't know why the non-VRF tests are run once with raw_l3mdev_accept=0 > > and once with raw_l3mdev_accept=1. Unless I'm missing something, this > > option shouldn't affect non-VRF users. Maybe the objective is to make > > sure that it really doesn't affect them. David certainly knows better. > > The problem appears to be that non-VRF tests are being ran with > raw_l3mdev_accept={0|1}, while VRF tests w raw_l3mdev_accept={1|1} ... The reason the VRF tests run twice is to test both raw and ping sockets (using the "net.ipv4.ping_group_range" sysctl). It doesn't seem anyone ever intended to run the VRF tests with raw_l3mdev_accept=0. Only the non-VRF tests were intended to be tested with raw_l3mdev_accept=0 (see commit c032dd8cc7e2 ("selftests: Add ipv4 ping tests to fcnal-test")). But I have no idea why. > I will try to fix that, but I am not sure of the semantics either. > > Regards, > Mirsad >