Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:11:03 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc:     "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@efficios.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <699475546.4794.1597173063863.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <f43a9397-c506-9270-b423-efaf6f520a80@gmail.com>
References: <42cb74c8-9391-cf4c-9e57-7a1d464f8706@gmail.com> <20200806185121.19688-1-mjeanson@efficios.com> <20200811.102856.864544731521589077.davem@davemloft.net> <f43a9397-c506-9270-b423-efaf6f520a80@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: Add VRF icmp error route lookup test
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Topic: selftests: Add VRF icmp error route lookup test
Thread-Index: K9OU1fUupPJcTCWW0BAtiweVmt3suA==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

----- On Aug 11, 2020, at 2:57 PM, David Ahern dsahern@gmail.com wrote:

> On 8/11/20 11:28 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@efficios.com>
>> Date: Thu,  6 Aug 2020 14:51:21 -0400
>> 
>>> The objective is to check that the incoming vrf routing table is selected
>>> to send an ICMP error back to the source when the ttl of a packet reaches 1
>>> while it is forwarded between different vrfs.
>>>
>>> The first test sends a ping with a ttl of 1 from h1 to h2 and parses the
>>> output of the command to check that a ttl expired error is received.
>>>
>>> [This may be flaky, I'm open to suggestions of a more robust approch.]
>>>
>>> The second test runs traceroute from h1 to h2 and parses the output to
>>> check for a hop on r1.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@efficios.com>
>> 
>> This patch does not apply cleanly to the current net tree.
>> 
> 
> It is also out of context since the tests fail on current net and net-next.
> 
> The tests along with the patches that fix the problem should be sent
> together.

One thing I am missing before this series can be considered for upstreaming
is an Acked-by of the 2 fixes for ipv4 and ipv6 from you, as maintainer
of l3mdev, if you think the approach I am taking with those fixes makes sense.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com