On 15 Apr 2020, at 15:34, Kristof Provost wrote: > On 15 Apr 2020, at 0:37, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: >> (Please send the followup to freebsd-testing_at_ and note Reply-To is >> set.) >> >> FreeBSD CI Weekly Report 2020-04-12 >> =================================== >> >> Here is a summary of the FreeBSD Continuous Integration results for >> the period >> from 2020-04-06 to 2020-04-12. >> >> During this period, we have: >> >> * 1801 builds (94.0% (+0.4) passed, 6.0% (-0.4) failed) of buildworld >> and >> buildkernel (GENERIC and LINT) were executed on aarch64, amd64, >> armv6, >> armv7, i386, mips, mips64, powerpc, powerpc64, powerpcspe, riscv64, >> sparc64 architectures for head, stable/12, stable/11 branches. >> * 288 test runs (25.1% (-24.6) passed, 29.9% (+10.6) unstable, 45.1% >> (+14.1) >> exception) were executed on amd64, i386, riscv64 architectures for >> head, >> stable/12, stable/11 branches. >> * 30 doc and www builds (83.3% (-1.3) passed, 16.7% (+1.3) failed) >> >> Test case status (on 2020-04-12 23:59): >> | Branch/Architecture | Total | Pass | Fail | Skipped >> | >> | ------------------- | --------- | ---------- | -------- | -------- >> | >> | head/amd64 | 7744 (+4) | 7638 (+19) | 14 (+5) | 92 (-20) >> | >> | head/i386 | 7742 (+4) | 7628 (+15) | 16 (+5) | 98 (-16) >> | >> | 12-STABLE/amd64 | 7508 (0) | 7449 (-3) | 1 (+1) | 58 (+2) >> | >> | 12-STABLE/i386 | 7506 (0) | 7425 (-17) | 2 (+2) | 79 (+15) >> | >> | 11-STABLE/amd64 | 6882 (0) | 6829 (-6) | 1 (+1) | 52 (+5) >> | >> | 11-STABLE/i386 | 6880 (0) | 6749 (-82) | 80 (+80) | 51 (+2) >> | >> >> (The statistics from experimental jobs are omitted) >> >> If any of the issues found by CI are in your area of interest or >> expertise >> please investigate the PRs listed below. >> >> The latest web version of this report is available at >> https://hackmd.io/_at_FreeBSD-CI/report-20200412 and archive is >> available at >> https://hackmd.io/_at_FreeBSD-CI/ , any help is welcome. >> >> ## News >> >> * The test env now loads the required module for firewall tests. >> >> * New armv7 job is added (to replace armv6 one): >> * FreeBSD-head-armv7-testvm >> The images are available at https://artifact.ci.freebsd.org >> FreeBSD-head-armv7-test is ready but needs test env update. >> >> ## Failing jobs >> >> * https://ci.freebsd.org/job/FreeBSD-head-amd64-gcc6_build/ >> * See console log for the error details. >> >> ## Failing tests >> >> * https://ci.freebsd.org/job/FreeBSD-head-amd64-test/ >> * local.kyua.integration.cmd_about_test.topic__authors__installed >> * sys.netipsec.tunnel.empty.v4 >> * sys.netipsec.tunnel.empty.v6 >> * sys.netpfil.common.forward.ipf_v4 >> * sys.netpfil.common.forward.ipfw_v4 >> * sys.netpfil.common.forward.pf_v4 >> * sys.netpfil.common.tos.ipfw_tos >> * sys.netpfil.common.tos.pf_tos >> * sys.netpfil.pf.forward.v4 > I can’t actually reproduce this failure in my test VM, but with the > ci test VM I can reproduce the problem. > It’s not related to pf, because the sanity check ping we do before > we set up pf already fails. > Or rather pft_ping.py sends an incorrect packet, because `ping` does > get the packet to go where it’s supposed to go. > > Scapy seems to fail to find the source IP address, so we get this: > > 12:12:22.152652 IP 0.0.0.0 > 198.51.100.3: ICMP echo request, id 0, > seq 0, length 12 > > I have a vague recollection that we’ve seem this problem before, but > I can’t remember what we did about it. > > In all likelihood most of the other netpfil tests fail for exactly the > same reason. The problem appears to be that /usr/local/lib/python3.7/site-packages/scapy/arch/unix.py is misparsing the `netstat -rnW` output. For reference, this is the output in the test VM: Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Nhop# Mtu Netif Expire 127.0.0.1 link#2 UH 1 16384 lo0 192.0.2.0/24 link#4 U 2 1500 epair0a 192.0.2.1 link#4 UHS 1 16384 lo0 198.51.100.0/24 192.0.2.2 UGS 3 1500 epair0a Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Nhop# Mtu Netif Expire ::/96 ::1 UGRS 4 16384 lo0 ::1 link#2 UH 1 16384 lo0 ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 ::1 UGRS 4 16384 lo0 fe80::/10 ::1 UGRS 4 16384 lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 link#2 U 3 16384 lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#2 UHS 2 16384 lo0 fe80::%epair0a/64 link#4 U 5 1500 epair0a fe80::3d:9dff:fe7c:d70a%epair0a link#4 UHS 1 16384 lo0 fe80::%epair1a/64 link#6 U 6 1500 epair1a fe80::37:9eff:fe03:250a%epair1a link#6 UHS 1 16384 lo0 ff02::/16 ::1 UGRS 4 16384 lo0 The parsing code seems to think that the netif for the 198.51.100.0/24 route is 1500 rather than epair0a. This may be related to the difference in netstat output, because on my VM it looks like this: Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Use Mtu Netif Expire default 172.16.2.1 UGS 319 1500 vtnet0 127.0.0.1 link#2 UH 0 16384 lo0 172.16.2.0/24 link#1 U 14 1500 vtnet0 172.16.2.2 link#1 UHS 0 16384 lo0 Internet6: Destination Gateway Flags Use Mtu Netif Expire ::/96 ::1 UGRS 0 16384 lo0 ::1 link#2 UH 0 16384 lo0 ::ffff:0.0.0.0/96 ::1 UGRS 0 16384 lo0 fe80::/10 ::1 UGRS 0 16384 lo0 fe80::%vtnet0/64 link#1 U 0 1500 vtnet0 fe80::5a9c:fcff:fe02:a95e%vtnet0 link#1 UHS 0 16384 lo0 fe80::%lo0/64 link#2 U 0 16384 lo0 fe80::1%lo0 link#2 UHS 0 16384 lo0 ff02::/16 ::1 UGRS 0 16384 lo0 I suspect that this change was introduced in r359823 (Introduce nexthop objects and new routing KPI). Best regards, KristofReceived on Wed Apr 15 2020 - 12:09:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:23 UTC