Hi Florian, > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-snps-arc <linux-snps-arc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Florian Weimer > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:50 PM > To: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; libc-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix/tst-getaddrinfo4: Consider EAI_NODATA as an expected result > > * Alexey Brodkin: > > > Hi Florian, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:08 PM > >> To: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Cc: libc-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix/tst-getaddrinfo4: Consider EAI_NODATA as an expected result > >> > >> * Alexey Brodkin: > >> > >> > Some proxy DNS servers might not resolve IPv6 names to addresses. > >> > Instead they reply with NOERROR while passing no real data. > >> > That combination of NOERROR and EAI_NODATA happen because the DNS > >> > server has a recored for requested name (example.net in our case) > >> > but that record is not of AAAA type which was requested. > >> > >> I think this invalidates the test to a large degree. I don't think this > >> is a valid test environment. You need to fix it. > > > > I think more interesting would be to figure out if behavior that I see > > is valid or not and then decide which test is representative. > > The test was added for this bug: > > getaddrinfo returns EAI_SYSTEM instead of EAI_NONAME when the network is down > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__sourceware.org_bugzilla_show-5Fbug.cgi-3Fid- > 3D15339&d=DwICAg&c=DPL6_X_6JkXFx7AXWqB0tg&r=lqdeeSSEes0GFDDl656eViXO7breS55ytWkhpk5R81I&m=sC1flmdXCo0K > _9eK__8gRyau_7kSpT32orktcQ2LNeQ&s=TlbAE45sBJja6y8F5OAcODgAOWc1Lx9MYQLP0_iOQSQ&e=> > > So I think the return code from getaddrinfo matters here. > > We could switch to a namespace with disabled networking; this way, the > test would perhaps be more reliable. > > I also think the test is wrong. EAI_NONAME indicates (negative) > success, something that should not happen if networking is disabled. That makes perfect sense, thanks for explanation. So I guess there's no point in spending any more time on that test now. -Alexey _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
