On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 07:07:31PM +0200, Antony Antony wrote: > Hi Brady, > > See some feedback from testing your latest branch, from an hour ago. > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 05:07:10PM +0200, Brady Johnson wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I submit several patch sets to my XFRM IP ref-counting PR [0] in the past > > few days. I fixed the assert/segfault that Antony reported on the PR, plus > > several other fixes and improvements. > > > > I created a slide [1] explaining the manual testing I have performed. > > > > Can I get a code review of the PR, please. > > > > I tried running the ikev2-xfrmi-15-interface-ip test that Antony created, > > but it failed and there were lots and lots of differences. > > Huge diff is expected, because there is no reference console output in that > test directory. I didn't not add east.console.txt and west.console.txt so > diff will be huge. > > I just read the whole output until we are confident to commit reference > output:) I noticed one error when adding connection in the test. > > ipsec add west > 003 ERROR: "west": ip_addr_xfrmi_store_ips() ifinfo_response NULL > 002 "west": added IKEv2 connection > > > But I still get failures when I run the basic tests like basic-pluto-01 on > > the main branch with Fedora-38, so maybe there are problems with the test > > suites??? > > > > Here are the basic-pluto-01 errors I get on git main: > > add leftinterface-ip=192.0.1.251/24 in west.conf. > > interface-ip=192.0.1.251/24 will be rightinterface-ip=192.0.1.251/24 and no > effect on west. In basic-pluto-01 west is left. > > Assuming configuration is correct I expect 3 hunks differences to > basic-pluto-01. > > 1. ipsec look and xfrm policy should have something like the following line > > + if_id 0x1 > > 2. xfrm state also should have the the same if_id > > + if_id 0x1 > > 3. route should be point to ipsecX and not to via 192.1.2.23 > > - 192.0.2.0/24 via 192.1.2.23 dev eth1 > + 192.0.1.0/24 dev ipsec1 proto kernel scope link src 192.0.1.251 > + 192.0.2.0/24 dev ipsec1 scope link > > "192.0.2.0/24 via 192.1.2.23 dev eth1" probably should be manually deleted > check westinit.sh first line where I delete that route.
4. also expect diff in xfrm state depends on your config + output-mark 0x1/0xffffffff _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list Swan-dev@lists.libreswan.org https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev