On 25 November 2015 at 10:31, Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org> wrote: > >> On Nov 24, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Joe Stringer <j...@ovn.org> wrote: >> >> On 24 November 2015 at 13:41, Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org> wrote: >>> Sometimes xlate_actions() fails due to too deep recursion, too many >>> MPLS labels, or missing recirculation context. Make xlate_actions() >>> clear out the produced odp actions in these cases to make it easy for >>> the caller to install a drop flow (instead or installing a flow with >>> partially translated actions). Also, return a specific error code, so >>> that the error can be properly propagated where meaningful. >>> >>> Before this patch it was possible that the revalidation installed a >>> flow with a recirculation ID with an invalid recirc ID (== 0), due to >>> the introduction of in-place modification in commit 43b2f131a229 >>> (ofproto: Allow in-place modifications of datapath flows). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org> >> >> Should this also set the error when receiving packets on a mirror port >> in xlate_actions()? Or when receiving tagged VLAN traffic that doesn't >> correspond to the port's vlan tag? Or when a group has no live bucket? >> Are there any other cases that should also be covered? (I just scanned >> across ofproto/ofproto-dpif-xlate.c looking for cases where we're >> already logging that we drop the packet, but maybe there's a reasoning >> behind not including these - if so, please enlighten me) > > No reasoning for missing those, I just did not notice them. Thanks for > pointing them out.
OK, I thought it may have been something like "expected errors" vs. "unexpected errors". _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
