On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:49:07PM +0200, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 08:58:59PM +0200, Nicolas Dichtel wrote:
> > Le 13/05/2015 21:59, Michal Kubecek a écrit :
> > >When replacing an IPv6 multipath route with "ip route replace", i.e.
> > >NLM_F_CREATE | NLM_F_REPLACE, fib6_add_rt2node() replaces only first
> > >matching route without fixing its siblings, resulting in corrupted
> > >siblings linked list; removing one of the siblings can then end in an
> > >infinite loop.
> > >
> > >Replacing the whole set of nexthops does IMHO make more sense than
> > >replacing a random one. We also need to remove the NLM_F_REPLACE flag
> > >after replacing old nexthops by first new so that each subsequent
> > >nexthop does not replace previous one.
> > >
> > >Fixes: 51ebd3181572 ("ipv6: add support of equal cost multipath (ECMP)")
> > >Signed-off-by: Michal Kubecek <mkube...@suse.cz>
> > >---
> > > net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c | 17 ++++++++++++++---
> > > net/ipv6/route.c | 8 +++++---
> > > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> > >index 96dbffff5a24..abf4e4e5bdab 100644
> > >--- a/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> > >+++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> > >@@ -815,6 +815,8 @@ add:
> > > }
> > >
> > > } else {
> > >+ struct rt6_info *next;
> > >+
> > > if (!found) {
> > > if (add)
> > > goto add;
> > >@@ -828,15 +830,24 @@ add:
> > >
> > > *ins = rt;
> > > rt->rt6i_node = fn;
> > >- rt->dst.rt6_next = iter->dst.rt6_next;
> > >+
> > >+ /* skip potential siblings */
> > >+ next = iter->dst.rt6_next;
> > >+ while (next && next->rt6i_metric == rt->rt6i_metric)
> > >+ next = next->dst.rt6_next;
> > I wonder if we should not loop over the siblings list here
> > (rt->rt6i_siblings). Only routes that match 'rt6_qualify_for_ecmp()'
> > are siblings.
>
> Problem with looping over the siblings list is that then we would have
> to find each of them in the (unidirectional) list linked by dst.rt6_next
> to be able to delete them from this list. Do we at least know that all
> routes in this list with matching metric and rt6_qualify_for_ecmp() are
> siblings? If so, we could still do the cleanup on one pass over the
> dst.rt6_next list.
Hm... it's still a bit more complicated. In the "replace" case, we break
the loop once we find any route with matching metric, i.e. we can find a
non-ECMP one even if there are some ECMP siblings farther in the chain.
As far as I can see, replacing such route would cause an inconsistency
as nsiblings would no longer match the number of ECMP-able routes in the
chain.
IMHO it's not completely clear what the "replace" semantics should be
for multiple routes (and, worse, for a mix of non-ECMP and ECMP ones).
One possible approach would be
- when new route is ECMP-able, try to find an ECMP-able route and
replace it with all its siblings
- if there is none, fall back to replacing first matching non-ECMP
route (or just add if creating is allowed)
- when new route is not ECMP-able (can this really happen with
NLM_F_REPLACE?), replace first matching non-ECMP or insert new one
But I still rather feel like replacing all existing matching routes
would better reflect what I expect "replace" to do.
Michal Kubecek
> > >+ rt->dst.rt6_next = next;
> > >+
> > > atomic_inc(&rt->rt6i_ref);
> > > inet6_rt_notify(RTM_NEWROUTE, rt, info);
> > > if (!(fn->fn_flags & RTN_RTINFO)) {
> > > info->nl_net->ipv6.rt6_stats->fib_route_nodes++;
> > > fn->fn_flags |= RTN_RTINFO;
> > > }
> > >- fib6_purge_rt(iter, fn, info->nl_net);
> > >- rt6_release(iter);
> > >+ while (iter != next) {
> > >+ fib6_purge_rt(iter, fn, info->nl_net);
> > >+ rt6_release(iter);
> > >+ iter = iter->dst.rt6_next;
> > >+ }
> > Same here.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
