From: Nikita Kozlov <nikita@elyzion.net>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] lib/lpm:fix two issues in the delete_depth_small()
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:55:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5630FE1F.3020306@elyzion.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151028144048.GA2504@bricha3-MOBL3>
On 10/28/2015 03:40 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 11:44:15AM +0800, Jijiang Liu wrote:
>> Fix two issues in the delete_depth_small() function.
>>
>> 1> The control is not strict in this function.
>>
>> In the following structure,
>> struct rte_lpm_tbl24_entry {
>> union {
>> uint8_t next_hop;
>> uint8_t tbl8_gindex;
>> };
>> uint8_t ext_entry :1;
>> }
>>
>> When ext_entry = 0, use next_hop.only to process rte_lpm_tbl24_entry.
>>
>> When ext_entry = 1, use tbl8_gindex to process the rte_lpm_tbl8_entry.
>>
>> When using LPM24 + 8 algorithm, it will use ext_entry to decide to process rte_lpm_tbl24_entry structure or rte_lpm_tbl8_entry structure.
>> If a route is deleted, the prefix of previous route is used to override the deleted route. when (lpm->tbl24[i].ext_entry == 0 && lpm->tbl24[i].depth > depth)
>> it should be ignored, but due to the incorrect logic, the next_hop is used as tbl8_gindex and will process the rte_lpm_tbl8_entry.
>>
>> 2> Initialization of rte_lpm_tbl8_entry is incorrect in this function
>>
>> In this function, use new rte_lpm_tbl8_entry we call A to replace the old rte_lpm_tbl8_entry. But the valid_group do not set VALID, so it will be INVALID.
>> Then when adding a new route which depth is > 24,the tbl8_alloc() function will search the rte_lpm_tbl8_entrys to find INVALID valid_group,
>> and it will return the A to the add_depth_big function, so A's data is overridden.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: NaNa <nana.nn@alibaba-inc.com>
>>
> Hi NaNa, Jijiang,
>
> since this patch contains two separate fixes, it would be better split into
> two separate patches, one for each fix. Also, please add a "Fixes" line to
> the commit log.
>
> Are there still plans for a unit test to demonstrate the bug(s) and make it easy
> for us to verify the fix?
>
> Regards,
> /Bruce
Hello,
It's the same fix as the one sent here (which contained some tests,
maybe we can use them ?)
http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/025871.html .
For what is worth, we are using those fix at my company and they are
fixing the described bug.
--
Nikita
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-28 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-10-28 3:44 Jijiang Liu
[not found] ` <BE55DC9B-FD48-47E7-A9AA-56278CB0D1F6@alibaba-inc.com>
2015-10-28 4:03 ` [dpdk-dev] 答复: " 洪余柯(洪余柯)
2015-10-28 14:40 ` [dpdk-dev] " Bruce Richardson
2015-10-28 16:55 ` Nikita Kozlov [this message]
2015-10-28 17:10 ` Bruce Richardson
[not found] ` <1E3F319B-C4DF-45E9-9FC4-4D93B176CC9C@alibaba-inc.com>
2015-10-29 10:18 ` Bruce Richardson
2015-10-29 11:08 ` [dpdk-dev] 答复： " 那娜(恒月)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5630FE1F.3020306@elyzion.net \
--to=nikita@elyzion.net \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).