This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
RE: [PATCH] posix/tst-getaddrinfo4: Consider EAI_NODATA as an expected result
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-snps-arc <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Behalf Of Florian Weimer
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2019 3:50 PM
> To: Alexey Brodkin <email@example.com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix/tst-getaddrinfo4: Consider EAI_NODATA as an expected result
> * Alexey Brodkin:
> > Hi Florian,
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2019 3:08 PM
> >> To: Alexey Brodkin <email@example.com>
> >> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> >> 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
> 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.