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 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
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
