[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAF2d9jhQQs+MX4TRbd1c7A3YH5cLV7uaJcQDhE1LWzMAG8uKjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:18:05 -0800
From: Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)
<maheshb@...gle.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>,
Jian Yang <jianyang.kernel@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jian Yang <jianyang@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net-loopback: set lo dev initial state to UP
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:04 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:49:23 -0800 Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:23 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:54:59 +0100 Petr Machata wrote:
> > > > This will break user scripts, and it fact breaks kernel's very own
> > > > selftest. We currently have this internally:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/fib_nexthops.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/fib_nexthops.sh
> > > > index 4c7d33618437..bf8ed24ab3ba 100755
> > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/fib_nexthops.sh
> > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/fib_nexthops.sh
> > > > @@ -121,8 +121,6 @@ create_ns()
> > > > set -e
> > > > ip netns add ${n}
> > > > ip netns set ${n} $((nsid++))
> > > > - ip -netns ${n} addr add 127.0.0.1/8 dev lo
> > > > - ip -netns ${n} link set lo up
> > > >
> > > > ip netns exec ${n} sysctl -qw net.ipv4.ip_forward=1
> > > > ip netns exec ${n} sysctl -qw net.ipv4.fib_multipath_use_neigh=1
> > > >
> > > > This now fails because the ip commands are run within a "set -e" block,
> > > > and kernel rejects addition of a duplicate address.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the report, could you send a revert with this explanation?
> > Rather than revert, shouldn't we just fix the self-test in that regard?
>
> The selftest is just a messenger. We all know Linus's stand on
> regressions, IMO we can't make an honest argument that the change
> does not break user space after it broke our own selftest. Maybe
> others disagree..
Actually that was the reason behind encompassing this behavior change
with a sysctl.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists