On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Joe Stringer <joestrin...@nicira.com> wrote: > On 15 July 2015 at 15:53, Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 02:53:56PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote: >>>> There are several implementations of functions that parse/format >>>> flags and their binary representation. This factors them out into >>>> common routines. In addition to reducing code, it also makes things >>>> more consistent across different parts of OVS. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jesse Gross <je...@nicira.com> >>> >>> Thanks, I like reducing code size! >>> >>> This patch deletes a test and part of a test in ovs-ofctl.at. Why? >> >> I'm not sure that these tests really make sense and arguably the >> behavior there were checking wasn't even right in the first place. In >> theory they are verifying that the correct OpenFlow version is >> selected based on the fields provided (in this case the correct >> version is "none") but it is being done using names that weren't >> supposed to be public, though the old parsing code allowed them to >> leak through. The new parsing code is enforcing the same invariants as >> before but more carefully and now rejects these commands as a parse >> error before it even gets to the OpenFlow layer that is supposed to be >> exercised. The next patch makes this field valid anyways and verifies >> the correct OpenFlow behavior, so it didn't seem like it made sense to >> keep the test around. > > Hmm, interesting. One of the bugs found by STACK recently also changes > the output of this test -- that bug was long-lived, in > parse_ofp_str__(). I plan to send the patches soonish. As I > understand, these tests are also meant to pick up on fields that > aren't supposed to be exposed, and make sure that ovs-ofctl doesn't > try to pass them on. That said, if the field will be allowed after the > next patch then I don't object.
What was the actual bug that was discovered? The problem here wasn't so much really that field should haven't been exposed - that part was working correctly. The issue was that the actual values should have been restricted by the parser. I can change it so that the test remains in this patch but only tests tun_flags(0) instead of key|csum. The next patch would then delete the test, since at that point the field is allowed. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
