From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <jijiangl@shecgisg004.sh.intel.com>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7708A9190
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:14:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27])
by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2015 06:14:56 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,218,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="675038111"
Received: from shvmail01.sh.intel.com ([10.239.29.42])
by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2015 06:14:48 -0700
Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (shecgisg004.sh.intel.com
[10.239.29.89])
by shvmail01.sh.intel.com with ESMTP id t9UDEl8i021652;
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:14:47 +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
t9UDEi57014284; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:14:46 +0800
Received: (from jijiangl@localhost)
by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id t9UDEiJ9014280;
Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:14:44 +0800
From: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:14:38 +0800
Message-Id: <1446210879-14242-2-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.12.2
In-Reply-To: <1446210879-14242-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
References: <1446210879-14242-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com>
Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] lib/lpm:fix an issue of condition check
in delete_depth_small()
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:14:57 -0000
Fixes an issue of check logic in delete_depth_small function.
For a tbl24 entry, the 'ext_entry' field indicates whether we need to use tbl8_gindex to read the next_hop from a tbl8 entry, or whether it can be read directly from this entry.
If a route is deleted, the prefix of previous route is used to override the deleted route.
When checking the depth of the previous route the conditional checks both the ext_entry and the depth, but the "else" leg fails to take account that the condition could fail for one of two possible reasons, leading to an incorrect flow when 'ext_entry == 0' is true , but 'lpm->tbl24[i].depth > depth' is false. The fix here is to add a condition check to the else leg so that it only executes when ext_entry is set.
Signed-off-by: NaNa <nana.nn@alibaba-inc.com>
---
lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 6 ++----
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c
index 163ba3c..57ec2f0 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
@@ -780,8 +779,7 @@ 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