From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF9E5A65 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 04:44:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2015 20:44:26 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,207,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="836722389" Received: from shvmail01.sh.intel.com ([10.239.29.42]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Oct 2015 20:44:24 -0700 Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (shecgisg004.sh.intel.com [10.239.29.89]) by shvmail01.sh.intel.com with ESMTP id t9S3iOGt015814; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:44:24 +0800 Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id t9S3iK30008998; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:44:22 +0800 Received: (from jijiangl@localhost) by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id t9S3iKQ8008756; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:44:20 +0800 From: Jijiang Liu To: dev@dpdk.org, nana.nn@alibaba-inc.com Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:44:15 +0800 Message-Id: <1446003855-5947-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.12.2 Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] lib/lpm:fix two issues in the delete_depth_small() X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 03:44:27 -0000 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 --- lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 7 +++---- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c index 163ba3c..3981452 100644 --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c @@ -734,8 +734,7 @@ delete_depth_small(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, if (lpm->tbl24[i].ext_entry == 0 && lpm->tbl24[i].depth <= depth ) { lpm->tbl24[i].valid = INVALID; - } - else { + } else if (lpm->tbl24[i].ext_entry == 1) { /* * If TBL24 entry is extended, then there has * to be a rule with depth >= 25 in the @@ -770,6 +769,7 @@ delete_depth_small(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, struct rte_lpm_tbl8_entry new_tbl8_entry = { .valid = VALID, + .valid_group = VALID, .depth = sub_rule_depth, .next_hop = lpm->rules_tbl [sub_rule_index].next_hop, @@ -780,8 +780,7 @@ delete_depth_small(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, if (lpm->tbl24[i].ext_entry == 0 && lpm->tbl24[i].depth <= depth ) { lpm->tbl24[i] = new_tbl24_entry; - } - else { + } else if (lpm->tbl24[i].ext_entry == 1) { /* * If TBL24 entry is extended, then there has * to be a rule with depth >= 25 in the -- 1.7.7.6