From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C893A2FDD for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:40:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Oct 2015 07:40:52 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,210,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="673579673" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.61]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with SMTP; 28 Oct 2015 07:40:49 -0700 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:40:48 +0025 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 14:40:48 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Jijiang Liu Message-ID: <20151028144048.GA2504@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1446003855-5947-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1446003855-5947-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [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 14:40:59 -0000 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 > 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