Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] selftests/net: A couple of typos fixes in key-management/rst tests

[Dmitry Safonov]

On 2/1/24 22:25, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
> 
> On 2/1/24 21:21, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 00:50:46 +0000 Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>>> Please, let me know if there will be other issues with tcp-ao tests :)
>>>
>>> Going to work on tracepoints and some other TCP-AO stuff for net-next.
>>
>> Since you're being nice and helpful I figured I'll try testing TCP-AO
>> with debug options enabled :) (kernel/configs/debug.config and
>> kernel/configs/x86_debug.config included),
> 
> Haha :)
> 
>> that slows things down 
>> and causes a bit of flakiness in unsigned-md5-* tests:
>>
>> https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/flakes.html?br-cnt=75&tn-needle=tcp-ao
>>
>> This has links to outputs:
>> https://netdev.bots.linux.dev/contest.html?executor=vmksft-tcp-ao-dbg&pass=0
>>
>> If it's a timing thing - FWIW we started exporting
>> KSFT_MACHINE_SLOW=yes on the slow runners.
> 
> I think, I know what happens here:
> 
> # ok 8 AO server (AO_REQUIRED): AO client: counter TCPAOGood increased 4
> => 6
> # ok 9 AO server (AO_REQUIRED): unsigned client
> # ok 10 AO server (AO_REQUIRED): unsigned client: counter TCPAORequired
> increased 1 => 2
> # not ok 11 AO server (AO_REQUIRED): unsigned client: Counter
> netns_ao_good was not expected to increase 7 => 8
> 
> for each of tests the server listens at a new port, but re-uses the same
> namespaces+veth. If the node/machine is quite slow, I guess a segment
> might have been retransmitted and the test that initiated it had already
> finished.
> And as result, the per-namespace counters are incremented, which makes
> the test fail (IOW, the test expects all segments in ns being dropped).
> 
> So, I should do one of the options:
> 
> 1. relax per-namespace checks (the per-socket and per-key counters are
>    checked)
> 2. unshare(net) + veth setup for each test
> 3. split the selftest on smaller ones (as they create new net-ns in
>    initialization)

Actually, I think there may be an easier fix:

4. Make sure that client close()s TCP-AO first, making it twsk.
   And also make sure that net-ns counters read post server's close().

Will do this, let's see if this fixes the flakiness on the netdev bot :)

> I'd probably prefer (2), albeit it slows down that slow machine even
> more, but I don't think creating 2 net-ns + veth pair per each test
> would add a lot more overhead even on some rpi board. But let's see,
> maybe I'll just go with (1) as that's really easy.
> 
> I'll cook a patch this week.

Thanks,
            Dmitry