New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
isisd: test_fuzz_isis_tlv unit test is failing when compiled against musl #2375
Comments
For posterity, the diff:
|
Completely randomly and just after I sent a "fix" patch to musl, I read this: http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/06/04/4 Incredible timing... Until it is fixed in musl, I think it would be nice to fix it locally... |
After some false starts, looks like our current approach is to let musl fix this issue and skip that test in frr when the inet_ntop is broken. Patch is being tested now... |
On Alpine Linux edge, musl does not seem to be RFC 5952 4.2.2 compliant (how to print a single :0: in the IPv6 address). Let's skip that test, as we get false negatives when running against that version of musl. Credit for the idea for the fix and how to fix it is due to chris@opensourcerouting.org. Testing done: make check on alpine linux passes now Issue: FRRouting#2375 Signed-off-by: Arthur Jones <arthur.jones@riverbed.com>
@mwinter-osr -- If this looks good for master, I'd like to get this in dev/5.0 if there is still time... |
On Alpine Linux edge, musl does not seem to be RFC 5952 4.2.2 compliant (how to print a single :0: in the IPv6 address). Let's skip that test, as we get false negatives when running against that version of musl. Credit for the idea for the fix and how to fix it is due to chris@opensourcerouting.org. Testing done: make check on alpine linux passes now Issue: FRRouting#2375 Signed-off-by: Arthur Jones <arthur.jones@riverbed.com>
On Alpine Linux edge, musl does not seem to be RFC 5952 4.2.2 compliant (how to print a single :0: in the IPv6 address). Let's skip that test, as we get false negatives when running against that version of musl. Credit for the idea for the fix and how to fix it is due to chris@opensourcerouting.org. Testing done: make check on alpine linux passes now Issue: FRRouting#2375 Signed-off-by: Arthur Jones <arthur.jones@riverbed.com>
On Alpine Linux edge, musl does not seem to be RFC 5952 4.2.2 compliant (how to print a single :0: in the IPv6 address). Let's skip that test, as we get false negatives when running against that version of musl. Credit for the idea for the fix and how to fix it is due to chris@opensourcerouting.org. Testing done: make check on alpine linux passes now Issue: FRRouting#2375 Signed-off-by: Arthur Jones <arthur.jones@riverbed.com>
Fix merged for master and didn't make it into 5.0, so we can close this... |
As a followup, musl has applied: commit 5c8e69267b9ae919e55eee4b79580224111bc3ba
So the workaround which has been applied here will not be needed for versions of alpine that use the version of musl with the fix (probably alpine 3.9 in 6mos)... |
On Alpine Linux edge, musl does not seem to be RFC 5952 4.2.2 compliant (how to print a single :0: in the IPv6 address). Let's skip that test, as we get false negatives when running against that version of musl. Credit for the idea for the fix and how to fix it is due to chris@opensourcerouting.org. NB 5.0: This cherry-pick from master will simplify frr packaging for alpine Testing done: make check on alpine linux passes now Issue: FRRouting#2375 Signed-off-by: Arthur Jones <arthur.jones@riverbed.com>
It looks like inet_ntop has different output on musl vs glibc. In particular, it looks like musl is compressing :0: into :: in the IPv6 output. Discussions on slack w/ @cfra led to a possible solution which I'm looking into now. We're going to try to wrap the inet_ntop on musl only with a custom version that doesn't do the compression.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: