* [Bug 976] rte_rib (and rte_rib6) do not handle /0 correctly
@ 2022-03-23 22:46 bugzilla
2022-03-23 23:38 ` Stephen Hemminger
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: bugzilla @ 2022-03-23 22:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev
https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=976
Bug ID: 976
Summary: rte_rib (and rte_rib6) do not handle /0 correctly
Product: DPDK
Version: 21.11
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: Normal
Component: other
Assignee: dev@dpdk.org
Reporter: stephen@networkplumber.org
Target Milestone: ---
The function rte_rib_insert() allows inserting 0/0 as a default route, but it
is not correctly handled by the current tree code. For example lookups will
never match the default route and tree traversal never finds this default
route.
Same bug probably exists in rte_rib6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug 976] rte_rib (and rte_rib6) do not handle /0 correctly
2022-03-23 22:46 [Bug 976] rte_rib (and rte_rib6) do not handle /0 correctly bugzilla
@ 2022-03-23 23:38 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-03-24 18:21 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2022-03-23 23:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bugzilla; +Cc: dev
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:46:02 +0000
bugzilla@dpdk.org wrote:
> https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=976
>
> Bug ID: 976
> Summary: rte_rib (and rte_rib6) do not handle /0 correctly
> Product: DPDK
> Version: 21.11
> Hardware: All
> OS: All
> Status: UNCONFIRMED
> Severity: normal
> Priority: Normal
> Component: other
> Assignee: dev@dpdk.org
> Reporter: stephen@networkplumber.org
> Target Milestone: ---
>
> The function rte_rib_insert() allows inserting 0/0 as a default route, but it
> is not correctly handled by the current tree code. For example lookups will
> never match the default route and tree traversal never finds this default
> route.
>
> Same bug probably exists in rte_rib6
>
Here is a patch to existing RIB test that tests boundary conditions.
It shows that /0 and /32 work correctly for lookup, it is just the
tree traversal that is problematic.
diff --git a/app/test/test_rib.c b/app/test/test_rib.c
index 06058f8f7c52..403fc85efe95 100644
--- a/app/test/test_rib.c
+++ b/app/test/test_rib.c
@@ -307,6 +307,79 @@ test_basic(void)
return TEST_SUCCESS;
}
+/*
+ * Call insert for successive depths from 0 to 32
+ * and then make sure we get the most specific rule.
+ */
+static int32_t
+test_depth(void)
+{
+ struct rte_rib *rib = NULL;
+ struct rte_rib_node *node;
+ const struct rte_rib_conf config = {
+ .max_nodes = MAX_RULES,
+ };
+ const uint32_t ip = RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 10, 1);
+ uint64_t next_hop_add = 0;
+ uint64_t next_hop_return;
+ uint8_t depth;
+ int ret;
+
+ rib = rte_rib_create(__func__, SOCKET_ID_ANY, &config);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(rib != NULL, "Failed to create RIB\n");
+
+ for (depth = 0; depth <= MAX_DEPTH; depth++) {
+ node = rte_rib_insert(rib, ip, depth);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to insert rule\n");
+
+ ret = rte_rib_set_nh(node, next_hop_add);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0,
+ "Failed to set rte_rib_node field\n");
+
+ node = rte_rib_lookup_exact(rib, ip, depth);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL,
+ "Failed to lookup\n");
+
+ ret = rte_rib_get_nh(node, &next_hop_return);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT((ret == 0) && (next_hop_add == next_hop_return),
+ "Failed to get proper nexthop\n");
+ ++next_hop_add;
+ }
+
+ /* depth = 33 = MAX_DEPTH + 1 */
+ do {
+ uint32_t this_ip;
+ uint8_t this_depth;
+
+ --depth;
+
+ node = rte_rib_lookup(rib, ip);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to lookup\n");
+
+ ret = rte_rib_get_nh(node, &next_hop_return);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT((ret == 0) && (depth == next_hop_return),
+ "Failed to get proper nexthop\n");
+
+ ret = rte_rib_get_depth(node, &this_depth);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT((ret == 0) && (this_depth == depth),
+ "Failed to get proper depth\n");
+
+ ret = rte_rib_get_ip(node, &this_ip);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0, "Failed to get ip\n");
+
+ rte_rib_remove(rib, this_ip, this_depth);
+ } while (depth != 0);
+
+ /* all rules removed should return NULL now */
+ node = rte_rib_lookup(rib, ip);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node == NULL,
+ "Lookup returns non existent rule\n");
+
+ rte_rib_free(rib);
+
+ return TEST_SUCCESS;
+}
+
int32_t
test_tree_traversal(void)
{
@@ -314,9 +387,17 @@ test_tree_traversal(void)
struct rte_rib_node *node;
struct rte_rib_conf config;
- uint32_t ip1 = RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 10, 0);
- uint32_t ip2 = RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 130, 80);
- uint8_t depth = 30;
+ uint32_t ips[] = {
+ RTE_IPV4(0, 0, 0, 0), /* /0 */
+ RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 0, 0), /* /8 */
+ RTE_IPV4(10, 11, 0, 0), /* /16 */
+ RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 130, 0), /* /24 */
+ RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 130, 9), /* /32 */
+ };
+ unsigned int count;
+ uint32_t ip;
+ uint8_t depth;
+ int ret;
config.max_nodes = MAX_RULES;
config.ext_sz = 0;
@@ -324,16 +405,44 @@ test_tree_traversal(void)
rib = rte_rib_create(__func__, SOCKET_ID_ANY, &config);
RTE_TEST_ASSERT(rib != NULL, "Failed to create RIB\n");
- node = rte_rib_insert(rib, ip1, depth);
- RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to insert rule\n");
+ for (count = 0; count < RTE_DIM(ips); count++) {
+ depth = count * 8;
- node = rte_rib_insert(rib, ip2, depth);
- RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to insert rule\n");
+ node = rte_rib_insert(rib, ips[count], depth);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to insert rule\n");
+
+ ret = rte_rib_get_ip(node, &ip);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0, "Failed to get ip\n");
+
+ printf("%u: insert [%p] %u.%u.%u.%u/%u\n",
+ count, node,
+ (ip >> 24) & 0xff,
+ (ip >> 16) & 0xff,
+ (ip >> 8) & 0xff,
+ ip & 0xff, depth);
+ }
+ /* Expect to be able to traverse to all nodes */
node = NULL;
- node = rte_rib_get_nxt(rib, RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 130, 0), 24, node,
- RTE_RIB_GET_NXT_ALL);
- RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to get rib_node\n");
+ for (count = 0; count < RTE_DIM(ips); count++) {
+
+ node = rte_rib_get_nxt(rib, 0, 0,
+ node, RTE_RIB_GET_NXT_ALL);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to get rib_node\n");
+
+ ret = rte_rib_get_ip(node, &ip);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0, "Failed to get ip\n");
+
+ ret = rte_rib_get_depth(node, &depth);
+ RTE_TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0, "Failed to get depth\n");
+
+ printf("%u: walk [%p] %u.%u.%u.%u/%u\n",
+ count, node,
+ (ip >> 24) & 0xff,
+ (ip >> 16) & 0xff,
+ (ip >> 8) & 0xff,
+ ip & 0xff, depth);
+ }
rte_rib_free(rib);
@@ -350,6 +459,7 @@ static struct unit_test_suite rib_tests = {
TEST_CASE(test_insert_invalid),
TEST_CASE(test_get_fn),
TEST_CASE(test_basic),
+ TEST_CASE(test_depth),
TEST_CASE(test_tree_traversal),
TEST_CASES_END()
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bug 976] rte_rib (and rte_rib6) do not handle /0 correctly
2022-03-23 23:38 ` Stephen Hemminger
@ 2022-03-24 18:21 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Medvedkin, Vladimir @ 2022-03-24 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Hemminger, bugzilla; +Cc: dev
Hi Stephen,
If I understand correctly, the only problem is that
"rte_rib_get_nxt(rib, 0, 0, ..." does not return 0/0 prefix?
If so, that's what was intended. From the documentation:
* Retrieve next more specific prefix from the RIB
* that is covered by ip/depth supernet in an ascending order
so in this case the existing 0/0 route isn't more specific with respect
to the 0/0 that you pass to rte_rib_get_nxt().
This function was designed in such a way to, for example, help the FIB
library extract gaps between existing routes within a given super prefix.
However it would be great to have these extra tests, could you please
update test_tree_traversal() to ignore 0/0 prefix and submit it?
Thanks!
On 23/03/2022 23:38, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 22:46:02 +0000
> bugzilla@dpdk.org wrote:
>
>> https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=976
>>
>> Bug ID: 976
>> Summary: rte_rib (and rte_rib6) do not handle /0 correctly
>> Product: DPDK
>> Version: 21.11
>> Hardware: All
>> OS: All
>> Status: UNCONFIRMED
>> Severity: normal
>> Priority: Normal
>> Component: other
>> Assignee: dev@dpdk.org
>> Reporter: stephen@networkplumber.org
>> Target Milestone: ---
>>
>> The function rte_rib_insert() allows inserting 0/0 as a default route, but it
>> is not correctly handled by the current tree code. For example lookups will
>> never match the default route and tree traversal never finds this default
>> route.
>>
>> Same bug probably exists in rte_rib6
>>
>
> Here is a patch to existing RIB test that tests boundary conditions.
> It shows that /0 and /32 work correctly for lookup, it is just the
> tree traversal that is problematic.
>
> diff --git a/app/test/test_rib.c b/app/test/test_rib.c
> index 06058f8f7c52..403fc85efe95 100644
> --- a/app/test/test_rib.c
> +++ b/app/test/test_rib.c
> @@ -307,6 +307,79 @@ test_basic(void)
> return TEST_SUCCESS;
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Call insert for successive depths from 0 to 32
> + * and then make sure we get the most specific rule.
> + */
> +static int32_t
> +test_depth(void)
> +{
> + struct rte_rib *rib = NULL;
> + struct rte_rib_node *node;
> + const struct rte_rib_conf config = {
> + .max_nodes = MAX_RULES,
> + };
> + const uint32_t ip = RTE_IPV4(192, 18, 10, 1);
> + uint64_t next_hop_add = 0;
> + uint64_t next_hop_return;
> + uint8_t depth;
> + int ret;
> +
> + rib = rte_rib_create(__func__, SOCKET_ID_ANY, &config);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(rib != NULL, "Failed to create RIB\n");
> +
> + for (depth = 0; depth <= MAX_DEPTH; depth++) {
> + node = rte_rib_insert(rib, ip, depth);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to insert rule\n");
> +
> + ret = rte_rib_set_nh(node, next_hop_add);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0,
> + "Failed to set rte_rib_node field\n");
> +
> + node = rte_rib_lookup_exact(rib, ip, depth);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL,
> + "Failed to lookup\n");
> +
> + ret = rte_rib_get_nh(node, &next_hop_return);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT((ret == 0) && (next_hop_add == next_hop_return),
> + "Failed to get proper nexthop\n");
> + ++next_hop_add;
> + }
> +
> + /* depth = 33 = MAX_DEPTH + 1 */
> + do {
> + uint32_t this_ip;
> + uint8_t this_depth;
> +
> + --depth;
> +
> + node = rte_rib_lookup(rib, ip);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to lookup\n");
> +
> + ret = rte_rib_get_nh(node, &next_hop_return);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT((ret == 0) && (depth == next_hop_return),
> + "Failed to get proper nexthop\n");
> +
> + ret = rte_rib_get_depth(node, &this_depth);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT((ret == 0) && (this_depth == depth),
> + "Failed to get proper depth\n");
> +
> + ret = rte_rib_get_ip(node, &this_ip);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0, "Failed to get ip\n");
> +
> + rte_rib_remove(rib, this_ip, this_depth);
> + } while (depth != 0);
> +
> + /* all rules removed should return NULL now */
> + node = rte_rib_lookup(rib, ip);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node == NULL,
> + "Lookup returns non existent rule\n");
> +
> + rte_rib_free(rib);
> +
> + return TEST_SUCCESS;
> +}
> +
> int32_t
> test_tree_traversal(void)
> {
> @@ -314,9 +387,17 @@ test_tree_traversal(void)
> struct rte_rib_node *node;
> struct rte_rib_conf config;
>
> - uint32_t ip1 = RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 10, 0);
> - uint32_t ip2 = RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 130, 80);
> - uint8_t depth = 30;
> + uint32_t ips[] = {
> + RTE_IPV4(0, 0, 0, 0), /* /0 */
> + RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 0, 0), /* /8 */
> + RTE_IPV4(10, 11, 0, 0), /* /16 */
> + RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 130, 0), /* /24 */
> + RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 130, 9), /* /32 */
> + };
> + unsigned int count;
> + uint32_t ip;
> + uint8_t depth;
> + int ret;
>
> config.max_nodes = MAX_RULES;
> config.ext_sz = 0;
> @@ -324,16 +405,44 @@ test_tree_traversal(void)
> rib = rte_rib_create(__func__, SOCKET_ID_ANY, &config);
> RTE_TEST_ASSERT(rib != NULL, "Failed to create RIB\n");
>
> - node = rte_rib_insert(rib, ip1, depth);
> - RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to insert rule\n");
> + for (count = 0; count < RTE_DIM(ips); count++) {
> + depth = count * 8;
>
> - node = rte_rib_insert(rib, ip2, depth);
> - RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to insert rule\n");
> + node = rte_rib_insert(rib, ips[count], depth);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to insert rule\n");
> +
> + ret = rte_rib_get_ip(node, &ip);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0, "Failed to get ip\n");
> +
> + printf("%u: insert [%p] %u.%u.%u.%u/%u\n",
> + count, node,
> + (ip >> 24) & 0xff,
> + (ip >> 16) & 0xff,
> + (ip >> 8) & 0xff,
> + ip & 0xff, depth);
> + }
>
> + /* Expect to be able to traverse to all nodes */
> node = NULL;
> - node = rte_rib_get_nxt(rib, RTE_IPV4(10, 10, 130, 0), 24, node,
> - RTE_RIB_GET_NXT_ALL);
> - RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to get rib_node\n");
> + for (count = 0; count < RTE_DIM(ips); count++) {
> +
> + node = rte_rib_get_nxt(rib, 0, 0,
> + node, RTE_RIB_GET_NXT_ALL);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(node != NULL, "Failed to get rib_node\n");
> +
> + ret = rte_rib_get_ip(node, &ip);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0, "Failed to get ip\n");
> +
> + ret = rte_rib_get_depth(node, &depth);
> + RTE_TEST_ASSERT(ret == 0, "Failed to get depth\n");
> +
> + printf("%u: walk [%p] %u.%u.%u.%u/%u\n",
> + count, node,
> + (ip >> 24) & 0xff,
> + (ip >> 16) & 0xff,
> + (ip >> 8) & 0xff,
> + ip & 0xff, depth);
> + }
>
> rte_rib_free(rib);
>
> @@ -350,6 +459,7 @@ static struct unit_test_suite rib_tests = {
> TEST_CASE(test_insert_invalid),
> TEST_CASE(test_get_fn),
> TEST_CASE(test_basic),
> + TEST_CASE(test_depth),
> TEST_CASE(test_tree_traversal),
> TEST_CASES_END()
> }
>
--
Regards,
Vladimir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-03-24 18:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-03-23 22:46 [Bug 976] rte_rib (and rte_rib6) do not handle /0 correctly bugzilla
2022-03-23 23:38 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-03-24 18:21 ` Medvedkin, Vladimir
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).