On Apr 17, 2014, at 11:26 AM, Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.k...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 16/04/14 18:00, Justin Pettit wrote: >> On April 16, 2014 at 9:00:15 AM, Zoltan Kiss (zoltan.k...@citrix.com) wrote: >> >>> My actual problem is that an important rule gets deleted: >>> >>> cookie=0x0, duration=1581.083s, table=0, n_packets=52804, >>> n_bytes=88968151, idle_age=0, priority=0,in_port=ANY actions=NORMAL >>> >>> ... >>> >>> There is no sign the controller did anything about deleting those rules, >>> but somehow it still happened. Does anyone knows >>> Unfortunately it is hard to reproduce the problem, it is only >>> intermittent in one of our testcases. >> >> I'm not sure that it's related, but it sounds similar to bug NIC-512 that I >> filed with Citrix over a year ago. Here's the relevant part: > Many thanks Justin it was this problem indeed! Now I poked the right people > to fix this quite forgotten problem! > >> I did commit a change that should lessen the impact: >> >> >> http://openvswitch.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=openvswitch;a=commitdiff;h=05dddba > Yes, this would solve the problem, but this patch removed it on the > assumption that ofputil_port_from_string() solved it anyway: > > http://git.openvswitch.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=openvswitch;a=commitdiff;h=33ab38d9 > > But it doesn't, in fact it does some pretty mad conversions: > - ofputil_port_from_string pass a uint32_t* to str_to_uint > - it is casted to an int*, which is fortunately 32 bit in most places, but it > is a dangerous assumption > - the string is converted to a 'long long' and then copied into that int* > - so if the string was "-1", the value of port32 will be 0xFFFFFFFF > > I think the best place to catch this problem would be to check in > str_to_uint() if the returned '(int *) u' is a negative number, and return > false in that case. What do you think? > It seems that the check for the minus sign needs to be done in ofputil_port_from_string(). The check for negative return values from str_to_uint() would not work as the special port numbers for OpenFlow 1.1+ are in that “negative” range. I just posted this patch, could you verify it solves your problem: http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2014-April/039070.html Jarno _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
