| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <884d9eb7-0e8e-3e59-cf6d-2c6931da35ee@alu.unizg.hr> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 07:37:15 +0200 From: Mirsad Goran Todorovac <mirsad.todorovac@....unizg.hr> To: Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: POSSIBLE BUG: selftests/net/fcnal-test.sh: [FAIL][FIX TESTED] in vrf "bind - ns-B IPv6 LLA" test 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 ]
Powered by blists - more mailing lists