On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 04:59:41PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
>
> > > I see people using cut and paste and suddenly seeing multiple markers and
> > > missing markers. So I prefer to not use it if we can avoid them.
> >
> > for now I prefer marker over
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 14:31, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 2020, at 18:45, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 11:10, Antony Antony wrote:
> >>
> >> I am curious what your thoughts now?
> >> Is it a good idea to add " : end " to nicinit.sh when final.sh is
>
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
I see people using cut and paste and suddenly seeing multiple markers and
missing markers. So I prefer to not use it if we can avoid them.
for now I prefer marker over "netkey-vti-04/final.sh:hostname | grep nic >
/dev/null || ipsec whack
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 08:31:03PM +0100, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 2020, at 18:45, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 11:10, Antony Antony wrote:
> >>
> >> I am curious what your thoughts now?
> >> Is it a good idea to add " : end " to nicinit.sh when
> On Jan 28, 2020, at 18:45, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 11:10, Antony Antony wrote:
>>
>> I am curious what your thoughts now?
>> Is it a good idea to add " : end " to nicinit.sh when final.sh is
>> not necessary. Or just Antony's preference? The test author can
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 11:10, Antony Antony wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 10:22, Antony Antony wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 09:19:52AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:31, Antony
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Andrew Cagney wrote:
Do you have specifics? Presumably the name space prompt wasn't
matching the simplified pattern.
Yeah. You can apply it and run any test case using namespaces, eg:
git show 91b337be287ace99b99bcf27f93d42cb2796a5b8 | patch -p1 -s
cd
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
If the nic does not need final.sh it can be sanitized away using
": end " marker.
when does nic ever need to run final.sh ? Can you point to one test
where it is actually used ? I don't know of any:
paul@bofh:~/libreswan/testing/pluto
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 10:22, Antony Antony wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 09:19:52AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:31, Antony Antony wrote:
> > > >
> > > > the markers should be used in
Paul,
Do you have specifics? Presumably the name space prompt wasn't
matching the simplified pattern.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 03:55, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> New commits:
> commit 9960144309ca90978a6a88a997ea63819c89f01e
> Author: Paul Wouters
> Date: Tue Jan 21 09:54:30 2020 +0100
>
>
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 10:22, Antony Antony wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 09:19:52AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:31, Antony Antony wrote:
> > >
> > > the markers should be used in nicinit for simple tests where we use
> > > eastinit.sh, nicinit.sh and final.sh
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 06:31, Antony Antony wrote:
>
> the markers should be used in nicinit for simple tests where we use
> eastinit.sh, nicinit.sh and final.sh
why
> other wise use 00-host-xx.sh and no final.sh.
>
> otherwise you get crazy things final.sh to avoid runing on nic.
> this has
the markers should be used in nicinit for simple tests where we use
eastinit.sh, nicinit.sh and final.sh
other wise use 00-host-xx.sh and no final.sh.
otherwise you get crazy things final.sh to avoid runing on nic.
this has NOTHING to do with swantest.
-antony
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 05:44:10AM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> Thanks for finding this bug Antony!
>
> I'm sorry you got bitten by this when you merged in the xfrmi branch.
>
> It does prove a point that branches become stale, and re-merging master
> into them regularly is a good thing. Then
Some of our markers in the test cases are not used anymore. I see that
people (including me) often now leave them out because it is not
required for either nsrun or kvmrunner.
It seems it is only required by swantest.
Having three methods of testing with their own requirements seems a bit
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
there are 3 tests I am not quite sure wheather related xfrmi or not.
From a quick comparison of testrun these appear as regression due xfrmi
merge. However, I suspect these are connection switch and ID fixes related
and not xfrmi related. Paul could
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
Subject: Re: [Swan-dev] better name for {left,right}ifaceip?
General comment:
We have way too many options.
We cannot lightly delete any that have been advertised in a release.
Has iface-ip been advertised?
It hasnt been advertised yet, as I
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, Andrew Cagney wrote:
Well, a bit of a segway.
Thanks to your efforts our tests are far more stable and this has
allowed me to increase testing's workload (the reason runs went from
3.5 to 2.5 hours is that I upped the # parallel boots). However, it's
also exposed what I
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:58:45AM -0500, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
Has iface-ip been advertised?
no. code is incomplete. We can change at this point. I would be happy to.
yes we can still change it until we release 3.30. This option has not
I found the root cause of this issue, fix in commit f2967f3bffd18.
It was not related to xfrmi code. xfrmi merge made an existing bug more
visible.
The fix also changed a few other test's v2-auth-hash-policy default to
SHA2_256+SHA2_384+SHA2_512 previosly it was none and authenticated using
Thanks for finding this bug Antony!
I'm sorry you got bitten by this when you merged in the xfrmi branch.
It does prove a point that branches become stale, and re-merging master
into them regularly is a good thing. Then this fallout would have
happened a few months ago.
Although I did do
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020, Antony Antony wrote:
# ephemeral ports
# - according to IANA: 49152-65535
# - according to Linux: 32768-61000
# the below matches 3-.. which is good enough
we're sanitizing anything >=32k (ok, technically, 30k :-) because it
_is_ ephemeral.
Yes that is the idea. I've
On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 09:41:39PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 15:29, Antony Antony wrote:
> >
> > First, I noticed sanitizers have improved a lot. Thanks.
> >
> > I know iptable change was discused a while ago[1].
> >
> > Now we are sanitizing sport and dport when it is
23 matches
Mail list logo
