On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 06:46:29PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> wrote:
> > diff --git a/datapath/actions.c b/datapath/actions.c
> > index e9634fe..7b0f022 100644
> > --- a/datapath/actions.c
> > +++ b/datapath/actions.c
> > @@ -617,6 +617,9 @@ static int do_execute_actions(struct datapath *dp,
> > struct sk_buff *skb,
> > case OVS_ACTION_ATTR_SAMPLE:
> > err = sample(dp, skb, a);
> > break;
> > +
> > + case OVS_ACTION_ATTR_RECIRCULATE:
> > + return 1;
>
> I think that if we've had a previous output action with the port
> stored in prev_port then this will cause the packet to not actually be
> output.
I'm not so sure.
I see something like this occurring:
1. Iteration of for loop for output action
switch (nla_type(a)) {
case OVS_ACTION_ATTR_OUTPUT:
prev_port = nla_get_u32(a);
break;
...
}
2. Iteration of of for loop for next action, lets say its is recirculate
i. Output packet
if (prev_port != -1) {
do_output(dp, skb_clone(skb, GFP_ATOMIC), prev_port);
prev_port = -1;
}
ii. Return due to recirculate
switch (nla_type(a)) {
...
case OVS_ACTION_ATTR_RECIRCULATE:
return 1;
}
Am I missing something?
> > diff --git a/datapath/datapath.c b/datapath/datapath.c
> > index e8be795..ab39dd7 100644
> > --- a/datapath/datapath.c
> > +++ b/datapath/datapath.c
> > void ovs_dp_process_received_packet(struct vport *p, struct sk_buff *skb)
> [...]
> > + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(skb)) {
> > + break;
> > + } else if (unlikely(!limit--)) {
>
> Should this be a predecrement?
I will make it so.
> > + kfree_skb(skb);
>
> Should we log some kind of rate limited warning here?
Sure.
> > + return;
>
> In the first case we use break to exit the loop and here we use
> return. Both should have the same effect so it might be nice to make
> them the same.
>
> > @@ -901,6 +913,9 @@ static int validate_and_copy_actions__(const struct
> > nlattr *attr,
> > skip_copy = true;
> > break;
> >
> > + case OVS_ACTION_ATTR_RECIRCULATE:
> > + break;
>
> I think we might want to jump out the loop here to better model how
> the actions are actually executed.
Sure, perhaps something like this?
diff --git a/datapath/datapath.c b/datapath/datapath.c
index ab39dd7..721a52c 100644
--- a/datapath/datapath.c
+++ b/datapath/datapath.c
@@ -914,7 +914,7 @@ static int validate_and_copy_actions__(const struct nlattr
*attr,
break;
case OVS_ACTION_ATTR_RECIRCULATE:
- break;
+ goto out;
default:
return -EINVAL;
@@ -926,6 +926,7 @@ static int validate_and_copy_actions__(const struct nlattr
*attr,
}
}
+out:
if (rem > 0)
return -EINVAL;
> > diff --git a/lib/dpif-netdev.c b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
> > index e4a2f75..31255f6 100644
> > --- a/lib/dpif-netdev.c
> > +++ b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
> > dp_netdev_port_input(struct dp_netdev *dp, struct dp_netdev_port *port,
> > struct ofpbuf *packet)
> [...]
> > + } else {
> > + dp->n_missed++;
> > + dp_netdev_output_userspace(dp, packet, DPIF_UC_MISS, &key,
> > NULL);
> > + recirculate = false;
> > + }
> > + } while (recirculate && limit--);
>
> I have the same question about predecrement here.
I will change this one too.
> > @@ -1163,6 +1190,7 @@ dp_netdev_sample(struct dp_netdev *dp,
> > const struct nlattr *subactions = NULL;
> > const struct nlattr *a;
> > size_t left;
> > + uint32_t skb_mark;
>
> I don't think it's right to have a new (and uninitialized) copy of
> skb_mark here. We should have the same one all the way through, like
> we do in the kernel.
Sure. I will pass it as an argument to dp_netdev_sample()
> > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
> > index 47830c1..5129da1 100644
> > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
> > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c
>
> I'm still working on more detailed comments for this. However, I'm
> concerned about whether the behavior for revalidation and stats is
> correct.
I am a little concerned about that too.
Perhaps Ben could look over it?
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
