Acked by?<fengsong> yuke.hyk at alibaba-inc.com
-----????-----
???: nana.nn [mailto:nana.nn at alibaba-inc.com]
????: 2015?10?28? 12:02
???: "???(??)"
??: dev at dpdk.org; Jijiang Liu
??: Re: [PATCH] lib/lpm:fix two issues in the delete_depth_small()
HI:
yuke?please acked-by~
On Oct 28, 2015, at 11:44 AM, Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu at intel.com> 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>
>
> ---
> 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
