Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Jun 2022 19:58:16 -0700 | From | Jakub Kicinski <> | Subject | Re: NEEDS FIXING - Was: Re: [PATCH v2] ipv4: ping: fix bind address validity check |
| |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 02:32:55 +0200 Riccardo Paolo Bestetti wrote: > I receompiled the kernel from the net tree to do some more manual testing > on the patch and I have two things to disclose. Sorry for the caps in > the subject. > > TL;DR: I noticed that one of the regressions tests is (correctly) > failing, but for the wrong reasons; and the patch I sent contains a > mistake, and unfortunately it has already been applied to the tree as > commit b4a028c4d0. > > Long version below. > > 1) If you run regression tests with -v, the (correct -- see below) ICMP > tests for broadcast and multicast binding do not fail with > EADDRNOTAVAIL, but with ACCES, but only when run through fcnal-test.sh. > This is also true for one of the additional (commented out) tests you > can find in my patch following this email. I'm not sure why this > happens; however I'm reasonably convinced it is a quirk or a consequence > of the testing methodology/setup. Can anyone offer any insights? > > 2) My patch is faulty. I had a complete and tested patch, including code > fixing the regression. Instead of sending it, however, I decided to > adapt it to preserve Carlos Llamas' version of ping.c, since they posted > their patch first. In doing so I used a work branch which contained a > faulty version (wrong flags) of the regression tests. The resulting > faulty patch is, unfortunately, currently in the tree. > > At this point, due to the unfortunate combination of (1) and (2), it > might be worth reverting the patch altogether and just applying the v1 > (i.e. without the regression tests) to the tree and to the relevant LTS > versions.
IIUC only the test is faulty / unreliable, correct?
We have until Thursday before this patch hits Linus's tree so should be plenty of time to figure the problem out and apply an incremental fix. I see you posted an RFC already, thanks!
> After that, a more proper discussion can be had about (1), and the > regression tests can be fixed. I'm sending a demonstrative patch for > that as a response to this message.
| |