On 9/6/19 1:25 PM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I just had a very fun rabbit hole dive, and I want to share it with you.
>
> I notice for some time that iotest 162 fails with that:
>
> -qemu-img: Could not open 'json:{"driver": "nbd", "host": 42}': Failed to
> connect socket: Invalid argument
> +qemu-img: Could not open 'json:{"driver": "nbd", "host": 42}': Failed to
> connect socket:
> Connection timed out
>
>
> I didn't bother to report it yet as it started failing more or less when qemu
> 4.2 merge window opened,
> so I thought that maybe something got broken, or maybe something broken in my
> environment
> (ahem, AF_UNIX path is too long, ahem)
>
> I just didn't had enough time to pay attention to this. Until today.
>
> So I asked Kevin Wolf today, just by the way why I see for some time that
> iotest 162 fails. for me.
>
>
> He told me that it works for him.
> So I look at the test and I see that it just does
>
> qemu-img info 'json:{"driver": "nbd", "host": 42}'
>
> Supposedly it should fail because 42 is not quoted, and it
> doesn't look like a valid host name.
>
> I try with disto's qemu-img (2.11) and I still see that I get the 'Connection
> timed out'
>
> Then I ask him to try on his system with '42' quoted and it still passes.
>
> All right - this means that this 42 is parsed. He also mentions that he uses
> fedora 29 and I still
> use fedora 28. So I start a VM with fedora 30, and yep, there it does work
> correctly.
>
> All right, that 42 must be parsed as a host name. Yep. 'ping 42' on my
> machine tries to ping 0.0.0.42,
> and in VM exits immediately with 'Invalid argument'
> All right, lets ping 0.0.0.42. Maybe something in hostname parsing changed,
> maybe something parses this on DNS level?
> Nope, ping 0.0.0.42 works on my machine, fails with invalid argument in VM...
>
> All right lets strace it
>
> connect(5, {sa_family=AF_INET, sin_port=htons(1025),
> sin_addr=inet_addr("0.0.0.42")}, 16) = -1 EINVAL (Invalid argument)
>
> Same thing passes on my machine....
>
> Hmm... this is something in the kernel. Maybe something in iptables/etc. I
> don't yet know that
> area that well to be honest.
>
> So I googled a bit and look what I found:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/791086/
>
> And yes, while my machine runs fedora 28, it as usual runs vanilla git master
> kernel, which I compile from time to time. Currently I am on 5.3.0-rc4+.
>
> So I must say that nothing less but kernel 5.3.0, breaks iotest 162.
>
> I''l prepare a patch soon to fix this.
I wonder if I am seeing some related problems, though I am running
5.2.11 right now and not 5.3.x:
162 is failing in this way:
-qemu-img: Could not open 'json:{"driver": "ssh", "host": "localhost",
"port": "0", "path": "/foo"}': Failed to connect socket: Connection refused
-qemu-img: Could not open 'driver=ssh,host=localhost,port=0,path=/foo':
Failed to connect socket: Connection refused
+qemu-img: Could not open 'json:{"driver": "ssh", "host": "localhost",
"port": "0", "path": "/foo"}': Failed to connect socket: Connection
timed out
+qemu-img: Could not open 'driver=ssh,host=localhost,port=0,path=/foo':
Failed to connect socket: Connection timed out
qemu-img: Could not open 'json:{"driver": "ssh", "host": "localhost",
"port": 0.42, "path": "/foo"}': Parameter 'port' expects a number
qemu-img: Could not open
'driver=ssh,host=localhost,port=0.42,path=/foo': Parameter 'port'
expects a number
and 147 is failing this way:
+ File "147", line 243, in test_inet6
+ if self._try_server_up(address):
+ File "147", line 156, in _try_server_up
+ self.assert_qmp(result, 'return', {})
+ File "/home/bos/jhuston/src/qemu/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py", line
685, in assert_qmp
+ result = self.dictpath(d, path)
+ File "/home/bos/jhuston/src/qemu/tests/qemu-iotests/iotests.py", line
661, in dictpath
+ self.fail('failed path traversal for "%s" in "%s"' % (path, str(d)))
+AssertionError: failed path traversal for "return" in "{'error':
{'class': 'GenericError', 'desc': 'Failed to bind socket: Cannot assign
requested address'}}"
I'm not sure when the failure started -- this is the first time I'm
seeing it -- I'm fairly certain I ran these tests Thursday or Friday
last week.
