On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:07:40AM -0500, Laine Stump wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019, 5:50 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 02:03:05PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote: > > > Since this test (050-apply-verify-host.t), we can't use a regexp in > > > the string to be compared. The fix method that leads to the least > > > changes is to use sed to remove potential leading 0's. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine@xxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > (These changes fix *almost* all failures in > > > nwfilter/050-apply-verify-host.t on RHEL8. The rest look like they > > > might be legitimate problems with ebtables and IPv6) > > > > Interesting, I swear I have previously got that test to succeed so > > wonder what's changed since then ! > > > > I figured it out yesterday evening but haven't gotten a chance to post it > yet. I was being alarmist - its not a behavioral difference, but just a > difference in how ipv6 addresses are formatted. The original ebtables > reports ipv6 addresses with a netmask (/ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff:8000::) while > the iptables-ebtables package that RHRL8 is now using reports it with a > prefix (/65). They probably hadn't switched packages yet the last time you > ran the test. I have a patch that modifies the expected output (and uses > sed to modify the output from 'older' hosts, similar to what you had done > for RARP vs 0x8035) and will post it in a few hours, once I've had coffee > and tested on both types of host. IMHO that should be reported as a bug against ebtables. The output format of the new tools should be 100% identical tothe old tools. Changing from a netmask to a prefix is a significant semantic difference that will break too many uses. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
