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 at 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
