From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9933038133E9 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 13:27:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9933038133E9 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 9933038133E9 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1719840466; cv=none; b=vGVUADHmt4ugCTBGDGkmtRucFTF2dXFcp8dICfjch71fvKEdER+wttw4zKBIQFv+fBNzmHuyvqI0znnitmI5Nakc4oIxYM7joPXRpTR3MS3kzQw5nkBWVDS6Xoj3JLbLldy88QJu5BfljmoAt4lUm6R9Yqs3t/s73rDMQ9Xupac= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1719840466; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3JiejVJO/pqy1n51052hWPkyGPtcSEDKFsAheq7QY/k=; h=DKIM-Signature:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Rx/gmI+SmRVvRQP2t4SdiUdaK89mAVun0iaj8IzxxpizUtQBPFocRmAz6wbiVQyXUnJaFr2fsCm/IRd1t5O06qHVdtwkYQ5R04/DriyOltJdAS/3f1vqjjYUpD3eNBKhh+pvaWx6gxSSXKWh2+8HFIk3vB4j2ESXXST7h7SqJFo= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1719840465; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6OIxW4Ylxu/b0SA3IgLpC/6kS6CVKVy6jCxcywcRQNo=; b=SRzxfmNuwhv9DN3YnLUrOK0bWXZSFFyBwBK3V9mPc2dscxWKd0y/zwA8BC1BuLsUxC6Jl2 GmrEFx27hh98J8SPR5bt/CmkFWI8EIS5jFhGGflS7S5Je9WHyZyFs5bxo7Im50ETHEvu2+ /4eK+W/yiM2+Zjt6td0PE3RAIqRFkug= Received: from mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-197-Q4TUVAFkMeu3IT0Ap-iaNg-1; Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:27:44 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Q4TUVAFkMeu3IT0Ap-iaNg-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.17]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BE941944DD1 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 13:27:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.54]) by mx-prod-int-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1918F1956048; Mon, 1 Jul 2024 13:27:41 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: DJ Delorie Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] resolv: Allow short error responses to match any query (bug 31890) In-Reply-To: (DJ Delorie's message of "Thu, 20 Jun 2024 16:26:34 -0400") References: Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 15:27:39 +0200 Message-ID: <87cynxgs38.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.17 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: * DJ Delorie: >> +static void >> +check_one (void) >> +{ >> + >> + /* The buggy 1-second query timeout results in 30 seconds of delay, >> + which triggers are test timeout failure. */ > > Will this delay be enough on small embedded boards where we set > TIMEOUTFACTOR to 20 or more? It might be worth adding an explicit set > of time() calls. > > I don't think we should rely on the test harness itself to check for > time-sensitive results. The tight time-based checks may fire unconditionally on small or loaded systems, so that's not great, either. The issue is generic, so I think it's okay if the reproduces the bug only with a default TIMEOUTFACTOR. I think a false negative here is better than a false positive. Thanks, Florian