Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

iperf3 test will fail if CAN interface can't set to up #233

Open
beliaev-maksim opened this issue Nov 28, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

iperf3 test will fail if CAN interface can't set to up #233

beliaev-maksim opened this issue Nov 28, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working FromLaunchpad

Comments

@beliaev-maksim
Copy link
Member

This issue was migrated from https://bugs.launchpad.net/plainbox-provider-checkbox/+bug/1978265

Summary

Status Created on Heat Importance Security related
New 2022-06-10 05:26:33 6 Undecided False

Description

[Summary]
ethernet/iperf3 test result will be fail if DUT has CAN interface. And seems the iperf performance is normal, but it fail while trying to bring up CAN interface.

INFO:root:Testing eno1 against 10.102.88.25
INFO:root:Have successfully pinged 10.102.88.25 on eno1
INFO:root:-------------------- Test Run Number 1 --------------------
INFO:root:Using 1 thread.
INFO:root:Connecting to port 5201 on server....
INFO:root:Avg Transfer speed: 938.6555555555556 Mb/s
INFO:root:93.87% of theoretical max 1000 Mb/s
INFO:root:Average CPU utilization: 10.4%
INFO:root:
INFO:root:-------------------- Test Run Number 2 --------------------
INFO:root:Using 1 thread.
INFO:root:Connecting to port 5201 on server....
INFO:root:Avg Transfer speed: 938.8333333333334 Mb/s
INFO:root:93.88% of theoretical max 1000 Mb/s
INFO:root:Average CPU utilization: 10.0%
INFO:root:
INFO:root:-------------------- Test Run Number 3 --------------------
INFO:root:Using 1 thread.
INFO:root:Connecting to port 5201 on server....
INFO:root:Avg Transfer speed: 938.6444444444444 Mb/s
INFO:root:93.86% of theoretical max 1000 Mb/s
INFO:root:Average CPU utilization: 9.6%
INFO:root:
INFO:root:-------------------- Test Run Number 4 --------------------
INFO:root:Using 1 thread.
INFO:root:Connecting to port 5201 on server....
INFO:root:Avg Transfer speed: 938.8333333333334 Mb/s
INFO:root:93.88% of theoretical max 1000 Mb/s
INFO:root:Average CPU utilization: 9.5%
INFO:root:
RTNETLINK answers: Invalid argument
ERROR:root:Failed to restore can0:Command '['ip', 'link', 'set', 'dev', 'can0', 'up']' returned non-zero exit status 2.

Please refer to submission[1] for more detail.
[1]https://certification.canonical.com/hardware/202201-29905/submission/265067/test-results/fail/

[Step to reproduce]

  1. Find any device which have both ethernet port and CAN bus.
  2. Execute ethernet/iperf3 test case for the ethernet port.

[Expected result]
iperf test should pass without any error.

[Actual result]
iperf test case will fail, but the result of performance is good.
Seems to be case failed due to restore can interface fail.

ERROR:root:Failed to restore can0:Command '['ip', 'link', 'set', 'dev', 'can0', 'up']' returned non-zero exit status 2.

[Failure rate]
100%

Attachments

No attachments

Tags:
[]

@beliaev-maksim beliaev-maksim added bug Something isn't working FromLaunchpad labels Nov 28, 2022
@beliaev-maksim
Copy link
Member Author

This thread was migrated from launchpad.net

https://launchpad.net/~bladernr wrote on 2022-06-10 17:46:35:

I'm not sure what the fix is here... it would be interesting to know what the status of can0 is before testing.

It's failing because it's, as you pointed out, tryign to bring up can0 after testing because that's identified as a network device.

are canbus interfaces tested in this manner? Maybe we could just add some discriminiation to the code to ignore can interfaces in that script completely?

Another, more complex option, would be to make it more stateful so that it tracks the state of all devices and then restores them to their previous state after testing (so if can0 is down initially, it stays down, but if can0 is up initially, an attempt is made to restore it).

I think, though, that overall the behaviour is correct, if interfaces fail to come up after testing that SHOULD come up, then we want the test to fail to trigger deeper investigation to determine why it's failing to come up.

https://launchpad.net/~rickwu4444 wrote on 2022-06-13 01:25:18:

@jeff,
The status of can0 before test was "down". And I'm agree with you that overall behavior is correct. But I guess we might a better approach of it.
And we don't test iperf on CAN interface, so for my point of view, both ways are doable, either ignore CAN interface or restore to previous status.

@pieqq pieqq changed the title LP1978265: iperf3 test will fail if CAN interface can't set to up iperf3 test will fail if CAN interface can't set to up Mar 3, 2023
@LiaoU3
Copy link
Contributor

LiaoU3 commented Feb 29, 2024

Is anyone trying to fix this?

Copy link

Thank you for reporting us your feedback!

The internal ticket has been created: https://warthogs.atlassian.net/browse/CHECKBOX-1280.

This message was autogenerated

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working FromLaunchpad
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants