On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 11:06 AM Ido Schimmel <ido...@idosch.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 10:49:23AM -0800, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार)
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 8:23 AM Jakub Kicinski <k...@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 12:54:59 +0100 Petr Machata wrote:
> > > > Jian Yang <jianyang.ker...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > From: Jian Yang <jiany...@google.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Traditionally loopback devices come up with initial state as DOWN for
> > > > > any new network-namespace. This would mean that anyone needing this
> > > > > device would have to bring this UP by issuing something like 'ip link
> > > > > set lo up'. This can be avoided if the initial state is set as UP.
> > > >
> > > > 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?
>
> I reviewed such a patch internally and asked Petr to report it as a
> regression instead. At the time the new behavior was added under a
> sysctl, but nobody had examples for behavior that will break, so the
> sysctl was removed. Now we have such an example, so the revert / sysctl
> are needed.
OK, in that case I would prefer to send an incremental patch to
enclose the new behavior with the sysctl (proposed earlier) rather
than the revert. Would that help?
