10 a.m.
Hi list,
so since the beginning of this week I've been poking at the last failure [1]
in the nwfilter segment of the TCK suite. So, the errors come from libnl
although I haven't been able to extract what the true underlying issue is since
interface with ID '8' definitely exist on my system.
A bit of background (you can either clone the repo or look at the Perl script
attached), we're configuring the guest network interface as 'direct' with
mode
VEPA. IIUC, for proper VEPA support you need a compliant external switch which
1) I don't have
2) upstream CI planned to run in a nested env won't have either.
The main issue lies in the test trying to set <virtualport> parameters on the
interface. I've tried with regular network interfaces, vlan-tagged interfaces
(as one of the other error messages complained about a missing vlan tag - which
is something VEPA switches supposedly do on their own), and SR-IOV VFs with no
luck. I'd be happy for any networking insights here, but given the setup
which had clearly been tested with specialized HW I'd suggest simply disabling
the test from the suite for upstream purposes - well, the correct approach
would be to introduce a new config option indicating that specialized HW is
necessary since currently the test case kind of abuses the config option
assigning a virtual interface directly to the guest which in this case is a
necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. However, with the Avocado<->TCK
joined work happening, I'd rather not spent more time with Perl than necessary.
[1]
virNetDevVPortProfileOpSetLink:823 : error during virtual port configuration of ifindex 8:
No such device or address
virNetDevVPortProfileOpCommon:958 : internal error: sending of PortProfileRequest failed.
Thanks,
Erik
12:47 p.m.
On 2/5/20 11:00 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
Hi list,
so since the beginning of this week I've been poking at the last failure [1]
in the nwfilter segment of the TCK suite. So, the errors come from libnl
although I haven't been able to extract what the true underlying issue is since
interface with ID '8' definitely exist on my system.
A bit of background (you can either clone the repo or look at the Perl script
attached), we're configuring the guest network interface as 'direct' with
mode
VEPA. IIUC, for proper VEPA support you need a compliant external switch which
1) I don't have
2) upstream CI planned to run in a nested env won't have either.
The main issue lies in the test trying to set <virtualport> parameters on the
interface. I've tried with regular network interfaces, vlan-tagged interfaces
(as one of the other error messages complained about a missing vlan tag - which
is something VEPA switches supposedly do on their own), and SR-IOV VFs with no
luck. I'd be happy for any networking insights here, but given the setup
which had clearly been tested with specialized HW I'd suggest simply disabling
the test from the suite for upstream purposes - well, the correct approach
I was involved in this a few years ago... without having the hardware
myself. I am fine with you disabling the test case.
The only other thing I'd be curious about is whether some changes were
occurring in the past that broke this test case (suddenly). You may not
know... I don't recall it having been broken, but cannot say for sure.
Is there something sensing (now) that the right network setup is not
available and therefore it behaves differently and things start failing?
Regards,
Stefan
would be to introduce a new config option indicating that specialized
HW is
necessary since currently the test case kind of abuses the config option
assigning a virtual interface directly to the guest which in this case is a
necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. However, with the Avocado<->TCK
joined work happening, I'd rather not spent more time with Perl than necessary.
[1]
virNetDevVPortProfileOpSetLink:823 : error during virtual port configuration of ifindex
8: No such device or address
virNetDevVPortProfileOpCommon:958 : internal error: sending of PortProfileRequest
failed.
Thanks,
Erik
3:56 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 01:47:24PM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
On 2/5/20 11:00 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
> Hi list,
> so since the beginning of this week I've been poking at the last failure [1]
> in the nwfilter segment of the TCK suite. So, the errors come from libnl
> although I haven't been able to extract what the true underlying issue is since
> interface with ID '8' definitely exist on my system.
>
> A bit of background (you can either clone the repo or look at the Perl script
> attached), we're configuring the guest network interface as 'direct'
with mode
> VEPA. IIUC, for proper VEPA support you need a compliant external switch which
> 1) I don't have
> 2) upstream CI planned to run in a nested env won't have either.
>
> The main issue lies in the test trying to set <virtualport> parameters on the
> interface. I've tried with regular network interfaces, vlan-tagged interfaces
> (as one of the other error messages complained about a missing vlan tag - which
> is something VEPA switches supposedly do on their own), and SR-IOV VFs with no
> luck. I'd be happy for any networking insights here, but given the setup
> which had clearly been tested with specialized HW I'd suggest simply disabling
> the test from the suite for upstream purposes - well, the correct approach
I was involved in this a few years ago... without having the hardware
myself. I am fine with you disabling the test case.
Interesting, can you elaborate on the details then how it's supposed to work?
Laine mentioned that the code paths being exercised work only on top of SRIOV
VFs, so I guess you made use of those at least?
The only other thing I'd be curious about is whether some changes were
occurring in the past that broke this test case (suddenly). You may not
know... I don't recall it having been broken, but cannot say for sure. Is
there something sensing (now) that the right network setup is not available
and therefore it behaves differently and things start failing?
It's been a looong time since the tests were run on a regular basis, so it's
very much possible that the XML interface params results into a slightly
different network setup in real world, it may not be just libvirt, but also the
underlying stack, the question is whether it's really worth pursuing or rather
try coming up with a new test case since this one hasn't been updated for about
8 years or so.
Erik
8:03 p.m.
On 2/5/20 11:00 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
Hi list,
so since the beginning of this week I've been poking at the last failure [1]
in the nwfilter segment of the TCK suite. So, the errors come from libnl
although I haven't been able to extract what the true underlying issue is since
interface with ID '8' definitely exist on my system.
A bit of background (you can either clone the repo or look at the Perl script
attached), we're configuring the guest network interface as 'direct' with
mode
VEPA. IIUC, for proper VEPA support you need a compliant external switch which
1) I don't have
2) upstream CI planned to run in a nested env won't have either.
The main issue lies in the test trying to set <virtualport> parameters on the
interface. I've tried with regular network interfaces, vlan-tagged interfaces
(as one of the other error messages complained about a missing vlan tag - which
is something VEPA switches supposedly do on their own), and SR-IOV VFs with no
luck.
I don't have the mental energy to trace through the code, but definitely
802.1Qbh only works on an SRIOV VF, and definitely the code is passing
VF# all up and down the code stack for 802.1Qbg as well.
I'd be happy for any networking insights here, but given the
setup
which had clearly been tested with specialized HW I'd suggest simply disabling
the test from the suite for upstream purposes
Yes, it should be disabled.
That test already "self-skips" if lldptool isn't installed (right?), and
I had always thought there was no reason to have that tool installed
unless you had an 802.1Qbg-capable switch. So how is it that you're
getting the test to fail rather than skip? Did you actually install the
lldpad package? If so, what for? Is it used for something else? (I
seriously doubt that anyone has ever run that test aside from maybe
Gerhard Stenzel (the IBM person who added it) and possibly some IBM QE).
If you need lldpad installed for other purposes, then I guess yeah, you
should make some other config option to disable the test. (maybe it
should have its own list of network interfaces separate from the list
that's already in the config file)
- well, the correct approach
would be to introduce a new config option indicating that specialized HW is
necessary since currently the test case kind of abuses the config option
assigning a virtual interface directly to the guest which in this case is a
necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.
The existence/absence of lldptool (which is in the lldpad package, at
least on Fedora) has been that option.
However, with the Avocado<->TCK
joined work happening, I'd rather not spent more time with Perl than necessary.
[1]
virNetDevVPortProfileOpSetLink:823 : error during virtual port configuration of ifindex
8: No such device or address
virNetDevVPortProfileOpCommon:958 : internal error: sending of PortProfileRequest
failed.
Thanks,
Erik
3:50 a.m.
On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 09:03:56PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote:
On 2/5/20 11:00 AM, Erik Skultety wrote:
> Hi list,
> so since the beginning of this week I've been poking at the last failure [1]
> in the nwfilter segment of the TCK suite. So, the errors come from libnl
> although I haven't been able to extract what the true underlying issue is since
> interface with ID '8' definitely exist on my system.
>
> A bit of background (you can either clone the repo or look at the Perl script
> attached), we're configuring the guest network interface as 'direct'
with mode
> VEPA. IIUC, for proper VEPA support you need a compliant external switch which
> 1) I don't have
> 2) upstream CI planned to run in a nested env won't have either.
>
> The main issue lies in the test trying to set <virtualport> parameters on the
> interface. I've tried with regular network interfaces, vlan-tagged interfaces
> (as one of the other error messages complained about a missing vlan tag - which
> is something VEPA switches supposedly do on their own), and SR-IOV VFs with no
> luck.
I don't have the mental energy to trace through the code, but definitely
802.1Qbh only works on an SRIOV VF, and definitely the code is passing VF#
all up and down the code stack for 802.1Qbg as well.
> I'd be happy for any networking insights here, but given the setup
> which had clearly been tested with specialized HW I'd suggest simply disabling
> the test from the suite for upstream purposes
Yes, it should be disabled.
That test already "self-skips" if lldptool isn't installed (right?), and I
had always thought there was no reason to have that tool installed unless
you had an 802.1Qbg-capable switch. So how is it that you're getting the
test to fail rather than skip? Did you actually install the lldpad package?
Well, I guess I did install it after all since TCK builddep and git repo setup
in a clean environment didn't pull the package in, which means that the test is
already disabled properly like you said.
If so, what for? Is it used for something else? (I seriously doubt
that
anyone has ever run that test aside from maybe Gerhard Stenzel (the IBM
it's still puzzling me, WTH is going on in there, but poking around libnl
hasn't been very productive so far and since the test *is* disabled by default
I guess I don't need to care anymore, we can have it in, but as far as Avocado
goes, once we start migrating the test cases to Python this one will be
excluded for sure, so if anyone is going to be interested in it, they will have
to fix it, verify it, port it and propose it upstream - alternatively, they can
run it internally as long as the results are reported back to upstream.
person who added it) and possibly some IBM QE). If you need lldpad
installed
for other purposes, then I guess yeah, you should make some other config
option to disable the test. (maybe it should have its own list of network
interfaces separate from the list that's already in the config file)
> - well, the correct approach
> would be to introduce a new config option indicating that specialized HW is
> necessary since currently the test case kind of abuses the config option
> assigning a virtual interface directly to the guest which in this case is a
> necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.
The existence/absence of lldptool (which is in the lldpad package, at least
on Fedora) has been that option.
Yep, that is correct, I just can't remember why I installed it in the first
place, probably because the test is marked as skipped and I was curious?
Thanks,
Erik
1754
days inactive
1755
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Erik Skultety -
Laine Stump -
Stefan Berger