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;
Message-ID: <884d9eb7-0e8e-3e59-cf6d-2c6931da35ee@alu.unizg.hr>
Date:   Thu, 8 Jun 2023 07:37:15 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: POSSIBLE BUG: selftests/net/fcnal-test.sh: [FAIL][FIX TESTED] in
 vrf "bind - ns-B IPv6 LLA" test
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
References: <b6191f90-ffca-dbca-7d06-88a9788def9c@alu.unizg.hr>
 <ZHeN3bg28pGFFjJN@debian> <a379796a-5cd6-caa7-d11d-5ffa7419b90e@alu.unizg.hr>
 <ZH84zGEODT97TEXG@debian> <48cfd903-ad2f-7da7-e5a6-a22392dc8650@alu.unizg.hr>
 <ZH+BhFzvJkWyjBE0@debian> <a3b2891d-d355-dacd-24ec-af9f8aacac57@alu.unizg.hr>
 <ZIC1r6IHOM5nr9QD@debian>
From:   Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@alu.unizg.hr>
In-Reply-To: <ZIC1r6IHOM5nr9QD@debian>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/7/23 18:51, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 12:04:52AM +0200, Mirsad Goran Todorovac wrote:
>> I cannot tell if those are new for the architecture (Ubuntu 22.04 + AMD Ryzen)
>>
>> However, Ubuntu's unsigned 6.3.1 generic mainline kernel is also affected.
>> So, it might seem like an old problem.
>>
>> (If you could isolate the exact tests, I could try a bisect.)
>>
>> [...]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP                                          [ OK ]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP                                           [FAIL]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback                                         [ OK ]
>> TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP                                       [FAIL]
>> TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP                                        [ OK ]
>> [...]
>>
>> SYSCTL: net.ipv4.raw_l3mdev_accept=1
>>
>> [...]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP                                          [ OK ]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP                                           [FAIL]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback                                         [ OK ]
>> TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP                                       [FAIL]
>> TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP                                        [ OK ]
>> [...]
>>
>> Yes, just tested, w commit 42510dffd0e2 these are still present
>> in fcnal-test.sh output:
>>
>> [...]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP                                          [ OK ]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP                                           [FAIL]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback                                         [ OK ]
>> TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP                                       [FAIL]
>> TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP                                        [ OK ]
>> [...]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP                                          [ OK ]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP                                           [FAIL]
>> TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback                                         [ OK ]
>> TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP                                       [FAIL]
>> TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP                                        [ OK ]
>> [...]
> 
> I have the same failures here. They don't seem to be recent.
> I'll take a look.

Certainly. I thought it might be something architecture-specific?

I have reproduced it also on a Lenovo IdeaPad 3 with Ubuntu 22.10,
but on Lenovo desktop with AlmaLinux 8.8 (CentOS fork), the result
was "888/888 passed".

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?

Thanks,
Mirsad

   74 #################################################################
   75 With VRF
   76
   77 SYSCTL: net.ipv4.raw_l3mdev_accept=1
   78
   79 TEST: ping out, VRF bind - ns-B IP                                            [ OK ]
   80 TEST: ping out, device bind - ns-B IP                                         [ OK ]
   81 TEST: ping out, vrf device + dev address bind - ns-B IP                       [ OK ]
   82 TEST: ping out, vrf device + vrf address bind - ns-B IP                       [ OK ]
   83 TEST: ping out, VRF bind - ns-B loopback IP                                   [ OK ]
   84 TEST: ping out, device bind - ns-B loopback IP                                [ OK ]
   85 TEST: ping out, vrf device + dev address bind - ns-B loopback IP              [ OK ]
   86 TEST: ping out, vrf device + vrf address bind - ns-B loopback IP              [ OK ]
   87 TEST: ping in - ns-A IP                                                       [ OK ]
   88 TEST: ping in - VRF IP                                                        [ OK ]
   89 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP                                          [ OK ]
   90 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP                                           [FAIL]
   91 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback                                         [ OK ]
   92 TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP                                       [FAIL]
   93 TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP                                        [ OK ]
   94 TEST: ping local, device bind - loopback                                      [ OK ]
   95 TEST: ping out, vrf bind, blocked by rule - ns-B loopback IP                  [ OK ]
   96 TEST: ping out, device bind, blocked by rule - ns-B loopback IP               [ OK ]
   97 TEST: ping in, blocked by rule - ns-A loopback IP                             [ OK ]
   98 TEST: ping out, vrf bind, unreachable route - ns-B loopback IP                [ OK ]
   99 TEST: ping out, device bind, unreachable route - ns-B loopback IP             [ OK ]
  100 TEST: ping in, unreachable route - ns-A loopback IP                           [ OK ]
  101 SYSCTL: net.ipv4.ping_group_range=0 2147483647
  102
  103 SYSCTL: net.ipv4.raw_l3mdev_accept=1
  104
  105 TEST: ping out, VRF bind - ns-B IP                                            [ OK ]
  106 TEST: ping out, device bind - ns-B IP                                         [ OK ]
  107 TEST: ping out, vrf device + dev address bind - ns-B IP                       [ OK ]
  108 TEST: ping out, vrf device + vrf address bind - ns-B IP                       [ OK ]
  109 TEST: ping out, VRF bind - ns-B loopback IP                                   [ OK ]
  110 TEST: ping out, device bind - ns-B loopback IP                                [ OK ]
  111 TEST: ping out, vrf device + dev address bind - ns-B loopback IP              [ OK ]
  112 TEST: ping out, vrf device + vrf address bind - ns-B loopback IP              [ OK ]
  113 TEST: ping in - ns-A IP                                                       [ OK ]
  114 TEST: ping in - VRF IP                                                        [ OK ]
  115 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - ns-A IP                                          [ OK ]
  116 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - VRF IP                                           [FAIL]
  117 TEST: ping local, VRF bind - loopback                                         [ OK ]
  118 TEST: ping local, device bind - ns-A IP                                       [FAIL]
  119 TEST: ping local, device bind - VRF IP                                        [ OK ]