"dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote on 07/27/2016 12:44:38 AM:
> From: Babu Shanmugam <bscha...@redhat.com> > To: Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> > Cc: ovs dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > Date: 07/27/2016 12:45 AM > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH] ovn-controller: update_ct_zone > operates always on empty set > Sent by: "dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> > > > > On Wednesday 27 July 2016 06:43 AM, Russell Bryant wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 6:46 AM, <bscha...@redhat.com > > <mailto:bscha...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > From: Babu Shanmugam <bscha...@redhat.com > > <mailto:bscha...@redhat.com>> > > > > Commit 263064a (Convert binding_run to incremental processing.) > > removed the usage > > of all_lports from binding_run, but it is infact used in the > > context of the caller, > > especially by update_ct_zones(). > > > > Without this change, update_ct_zones operates on an empty set always. > > > > Signed-off-by: Babu Shanmugam <bscha...@redhat.com > > <mailto:bscha...@redhat.com>> > > > > > > Ouch. This is a really bad regression. If I understand correctly, > > we're not setting a ct zone ID for any logical ports. All are just > > using the default zone of 0. > > > Yes Russell, your understanding is correct. > > We should think about a good way to test OVN's use of conntrack zones > > to ensure that entries end up in separate zones for separate ports. A > > good test for that may require userspace conntrack support, though. > > Another test we could do now would be looking at the flows in table 0 > > and ensuring that the input flow for each port has a different > > conntrack zone ID assigned. That feels like kind of a hack, though. > I agree that we need more test cases. I could not spend much time to > figure out a proper approach for a test case. I will have a look at it. > > Thank you, > Babu > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/653288/ replicates the all_lports code from binding.c prior to commit 263064a (I literally rolled a repo back to the commit before that one and then did a code inspection and copy/paste). Now, I still don't have a test case that shows the revert is fixed (because I frankly don't know how to write this one), but I believe that with the above patch set we are no longer using only the default zone. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
