As we discussed off-line, I think you can reproduce this pretty easily with a fairly simple flow table.
--Justin On Dec 11, 2013, at 2:43 PM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote: > It looks to me this needs to be back ported. But I would like to make sure > the same bug exists on branch-1.11 before applying. What do you think? > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com> wrote: > Did you determine whether it should be backported to branch-1.11? > > --Justin > > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:34 PM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for the review, pushed to master and branch-2.0 with fixes suggested. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Andy Zhou <az...@nicira.com> wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c > > > index ff77903..8d9a9bd 100644 > > > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c > > > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif.c > > > @@ -4219,6 +4219,9 @@ facet_revalidate(struct facet *facet) > > > xlate_in_init(&xin, ofproto, &facet->flow, new_rule, 0, NULL); > > > xlate_actions(&xin, &xout); > > > flow_wildcards_or(&xout.wc, &xout.wc, &wc); > > > + /* Make sure non packet fields are not masked. If not cleared, the > > > memcmp() > > > > Nitpicking, but can you make it "non-packet". > > > > > + * below may fail, causing otherwise valid facet to be removed. */ > > > > Can you add an "an" before "otherwise"? > > > > Acked-by: Justin Pettit <jpet...@nicira.com> > > > > --Justin > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
