On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 04:33:01PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > > On May 22, 2014, at 4:27 PM, Jarno Rajahalme <jrajaha...@nicira.com> wrote: > > >> I find myself wondering whether we could end up with a funny > >> paradoxical mask, e.g. mark some bit of a TCP port as looked at even > >> though we didn't mark the IP protocol as looked at. I am not sure > >> whether this can happen or whether this is a problem. Actually, > >> looking further, I guess it can't happen because we always unwildcard > >> all the fields up to the current stage when we jump to range_out. In > >> fact, I think that range_out wildcards the current stage, too: is that > >> defeating the intended optimization here? (I see that you updated the > >> tests so presumably not?) > > > > range_out: wildcards upto the beginning of the current stage (?ofs.start?). > > But in this case we update the ?ofs.start? to be the end of the current > > range before this call? I have to investigate a bit more :-) > > OK, in this case we have just used all the bits in the current range to > determine there one potential match (meaning that the bits in the range > matched). When we do the full check, and find it still matches, we unwildcard > the whole mask (as all of that was significant for the full match). However, > if the full match fails, we need to unwildcard all the bits of the current > stage (that proved the packet can match at most one rule), and one additional > bit (after the the current stage) that proves the packet does not match the > one rule found. > > Jarno
OK. Are you preparing a v3? I think I suggested a few changes earlier. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
