Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
New look: Off

Regression test fails in tor dev head

    • Closed (moved) Issue created by Trac @tracbot

    One regression test failed after source tree update 2015.03.31/2015.04.01

    Tor v0.2.7.0-alpha-dev (git-1ac3cb4823048bc3) running on NetBSD with Libevent 2.1.5-beta, OpenSSL 1.0.1k and Zlib 1.2.3

    Failed test: address/udp_socket_trick_blackbox: [forking] FAIL src/test/test_address.c:595: assert((retval == -1 && retval_reference == -1) || (tor_addr_compare(&addr4,&addr4_to_check,CMP_EXACT) == 0)) [udp_socket_trick_blackbox FAILED]

    Trac:
    Username: yancm

    To upload designs, you'll need to enable LFS and have an admin enable hashed storage. More information

    Child items 0

    • No child items are currently assigned. Use child items to break down this issue into smaller parts.

    Activity

    • Trac changed milestone to %Tor: 0.2.7.x-final

      changed milestone to %Tor: 0.2.7.x-final

    • Trac added component::core tor/tor milestone::Tor: 0.2.7.x-final priority::medium reporter::yancm resolution::duplicate status::closed type::defect version::tor unspecified labels

      added component::core tor/tor milestone::Tor: 0.2.7.x-final priority::medium reporter::yancm resolution::duplicate status::closed type::defect version::tor unspecified labels

    • Y
      Yawning Angel @yawning ·

      This might be #12377 (moved), but I'd need to see the ifconfig and routing table of the box that fails to be sure. (Redact public IPs as appropriate).

      Trac:
      Status: new to needs_information

    • Trac
      Trac @tracbot ·
      Author

      I also just updated to latest git/dev and the teststill fails the same.

      As background I have been running development tor for many years on this box. This is new behavior...

      Routing tables

      Internet: Destination Gateway Flags default 10.1.10.1 UG 10.1.10.0/24 link#1 U 10.1.10.1 00:50:f1:80:00:00 UHL 10.1.10.255 link#1 UHL loopback 127.0.0.1 UGR localhost 127.0.0.1 UH 192.168.1.0/24 link#2 U 192.168.1.1 00:1b:21:94:ff:8d UHL 192.168.1.2 d0:50:99:25:19:bb UHL 192.168.1.4 00:00:5a:9e:ff:92 UHL 192.168.1.58 link#2 UHL 192.168.1.69 18:e7:f4:17:41:ba UHL 192.168.1.71 00:11:d9:0b:06:3d UHL 192.168.1.75 70:56:81:04:f8:f6 UHL 192.168.1.80 a0:a8:cd:5f:1b:1c UHL 192.168.1.81 9c:ad:ef:10:56:34 UHL 192.168.1.96 ac:cf:5c:ac:77:60 UHL 192.168.1.100 e8:06:88:94:cf:5f UHL 192.168.1.255 link#2 UHL

      ifconfig: wm0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 capabilities=2bf80<TSO4,IP4CSUM_Rx,IP4CSUM_Tx,TCP4CSUM_Rx,TCP4CSUM_Tx,UDP4CSUM_Rx,UDP4CSUM_Tx,TCP6CSUM_Tx,UDP6CSUM_Tx> enabled=3f80<TSO4,IP4CSUM_Rx,IP4CSUM_Tx,TCP4CSUM_Rx,TCP4CSUM_Tx,UDP4CSUM_Rx,UDP4CSUM_Tx> address: 00:1b:21:95:00:1a media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT full-duplex,flowcontrol,rxpause,txpause) status: active inet 10.1.10.10 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.1.10.255 inet6 fe80::21b:21ff:fe95:1a%wm0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 wm1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 capabilities=2bf80<TSO4,IP4CSUM_Rx,IP4CSUM_Tx,TCP4CSUM_Rx,TCP4CSUM_Tx,UDP4CSUM_Rx,UDP4CSUM_Tx,TCP6CSUM_Tx,UDP6CSUM_Tx> enabled=3f80<TSO4,IP4CSUM_Rx,IP4CSUM_Tx,TCP4CSUM_Rx,TCP4CSUM_Tx,UDP4CSUM_Rx,UDP4CSUM_Tx> address: 00:1b:21:94:ff:8d media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT full-duplex,flowcontrol,rxpause,txpause) status: active inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 inet6 fe80::21b:21ff:fe94:ff8d%wm1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 33192 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x3

      Trac:
      Username: yancm

    • Trac
      Trac @tracbot ·
      Author

      Trac:
      Username: yancm
      Status: needs_information to new

    • Y
      Yawning Angel @yawning ·

      Yeah, this is a duplicate of #12377 (moved), get_interface_address6() doesn't do the right thing when there's multiple (non-loopback/multicast) addresses of the same family so the test fails since it's written under the assumption that the code it's calling is correct.

      The regression test was added recently to try to extend coverage to certain routines.

      Trac:
      Status: new to closed
      Resolution: N/A to duplicate

    • Trac closed

      closed

    • Trac moved to tpo/core/tor#15534 (closed)

      moved to tpo/core/tor#15534 (closed)

    Please register or sign in to reply