Received: by 2002:a6b:fb09:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id h9csp1000132iog; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 20:23:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1soGufRGa/Twinlrj/51XG2Et6z2InwJ2GVLkfWSlmIHwx/hfxBWIsTfxACgKU2kv+rxbC+ X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:2341:b0:167:4b11:a8e with SMTP id c1-20020a170903234100b001674b110a8emr12906019plh.10.1655522618924; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 20:23:38 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1655522618; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Lnori0PklEvQMLbZPt5BQiJr4W4IKHOvcdvHo7Im8mT+vMPlsw6Oes5Z27x+C4U7N9 4krHwsIwJ0/XKkr2GWsqwXZMdi5DViYNIbwdCJDs7gofLmDRPeuzB+ZFagzP5umWk9MK fCEZy2HvkIMvaUJaz5SAtSddEcGzbbtyBeOFU0kLEI9liKAoaUAp3JDsdkLsw9qxNSUU 8msauXg0OKdgW91TKKWIRP9VYt204kHFDwsS52ejq69QEy378Nz3OdZXU62AkV3KGjLQ qf05fvZ/1UUhfSfN/YBCSfyo9fB++5N7zppO1yGegEDw6wReAW0kgVWaKCTy62ItkGLZ /d8w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :dkim-signature; bh=js8xxBr7QEuAbwEBG/iQn7KM1R4orNR5HS17Q8VuQOg=; b=mq0cbbIUAFU6rVVQkLqw+xykjWTVNBpV7qleInTrzH2lKe83UV8Me6eICQwBJRcK0u 1omn45UGjdDOsCTNEmcz6dF0paR06xifS8NXnzlduu84Q0owrgHHKjv9o/B62dHPo3rW swij0HM3JTC1CiI15uIwPBxSpnegmVeIG1JaGSa+pCIKNOwFxo+aaAIRCnd2fRfQNZip T4CRWkWKYJcDh6bqXnqSMmOyQ2kmJZJkO/KOGAbeFc/rHBhCl/WHTy1y6KxOZMOIwvOY bsJIZ1NRaS0PvO0SdiIiqcBEhGBUP+7x5ih0fE1BMhFcXE3Z3IiBBgjU+K/Y+67OTzUf opvA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=uZUuup+U; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id u7-20020a626007000000b0051b95f36eacsi7643839pfb.274.2022.06.17.20.23.27; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 20:23:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=uZUuup+U; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237550AbiFRC6o (ORCPT + 99 others); Fri, 17 Jun 2022 22:58:44 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34666 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237911AbiFRC6V (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2022 22:58:21 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1917B38DA9; Fri, 17 Jun 2022 19:58:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7A0661F5D; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 02:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A81BCC3411B; Sat, 18 Jun 2022 02:58:17 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1655521098; bh=te/1XpkUNmq6MV9BQThN7XRjwLAPokCR7ABtjmsHLyI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uZUuup+U1ZMaEej/wdCOMPftyUvTw9k+De0Cv1SbNdXgd7oNZpnBaEmvXcPjNsVxU 7URtzG1KUDLCsru2yB4oY+vYt32Sseg2s5qYAQGwuiOFdi9WdZVggcoq0JIo5nmNYk ELL4c/0HBun5HmnrxCFHZmdNHkrRBAswUsxJXrpUDyILrXODC5DZrfiuc9uvMDrqgq KHMU6onBxjlK9hOxkhrudZ/m9QL1jKP+Erzco3roJZM/07gdvFX6m/7oRgRRu19VIs DKhXJFVJI+DmVHOnFkdVv+M9ApOg1+WPGo6S6tEf/Jy74XQtgtLpX3XLPJt7y3ZnG6 G98Nyh0ELTf5g== Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 19:58:16 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: "Riccardo Paolo Bestetti" Cc: , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: NEEDS FIXING - Was: Re: [PATCH v2] ipv4: ping: fix bind address validity check Message-ID: <20220617195816.53a2f2cf@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20220617085435.193319-1-pbl@bestov.io> <165546541315.12170.9716012665055247467.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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.