It looks like this wasn't backported, should it be?
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 02:06:46PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote:
> Pushed. Thanks for the fix!
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 9:41 PM, Simon Horman
> <simon.hor...@netronome.com> wrote:
> > When searching through the valid ids an id should
> > be used if is not found rather than if it is found.
> >
> > It appears to me that without this change duplicate recirculation
> > ids may used in cases where the last recirculation id has
> > been allocated; selection loops back to the beginning of the pool and;
> > reaches a recirculation id that is still in use.
> >
> > As the number of recirculation ids is currently RECIRC_ID_N_IDS = 1024 this
> > does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility.
> >
> > I have not verified that such a scenario can actually occur. But it seems
> > that a likely consequence would be that some packets may be forwarded
> > incorrectly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <simon.hor...@netronome.com>
> > ---
> > ofproto/ofproto-dpif-rid.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-rid.c b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-rid.c
> > index b3d98eb..e75dfc8 100644
> > --- a/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-rid.c
> > +++ b/ofproto/ofproto-dpif-rid.c
> > @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ rid_pool_alloc_id(struct rid_pool *rids)
> > }
> >
> > for(id = rids->base; id < rids->base + rids->n_ids; id++) {
> > - if (rid_pool_find(rids, id)) {
> > + if (!rid_pool_find(rids, id)) {
> > goto found_free_id;
> > }
> > }
> > --
> > 2.0.1
> >
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@openvswitch.org
> http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
