On 10 October 2017 at 08:09, Eric Garver <e...@erig.me> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:33:48AM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote:
>> On 9 October 2017 at 21:41, Pravin Shelar <pshe...@ovn.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Eric Garver <e...@erig.me> wrote:
>> >> This adds a ct_clear action for clearing conntrack state. ct_clear is
>> >> currently implemented in OVS userspace, but is not backed by an action
>> >> in the kernel datapath. This is useful for flows that may modify a
>> >> packet tuple after a ct lookup has already occurred.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Garver <e...@erig.me>
>> > Patch mostly looks good. I have following comments.
>> >
>> >> ---
>> >> include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h | 2 ++
>> >> net/openvswitch/actions.c | 5 +++++
>> >> net/openvswitch/conntrack.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>> >> net/openvswitch/conntrack.h | 7 +++++++
>> >> net/openvswitch/flow_netlink.c | 5 +++++
>> >> 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h
>> >> b/include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h
>> >> index 156ee4cab82e..1b6e510e2cc6 100644
>> >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h
>> >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h
>> >> @@ -806,6 +806,7 @@ struct ovs_action_push_eth {
>> >> * packet.
>> >> * @OVS_ACTION_ATTR_POP_ETH: Pop the outermost Ethernet header off the
>> >> * packet.
>> >> + * @OVS_ACTION_ATTR_CT_CLEAR: Clear conntrack state from the packet.
>> >> *
>> >> * Only a single header can be set with a single %OVS_ACTION_ATTR_SET.
>> >> Not all
>> >> * fields within a header are modifiable, e.g. the IPv4 protocol and
>> >> fragment
>> >> @@ -835,6 +836,7 @@ enum ovs_action_attr {
>> >> OVS_ACTION_ATTR_TRUNC, /* u32 struct ovs_action_trunc. */
>> >> OVS_ACTION_ATTR_PUSH_ETH, /* struct ovs_action_push_eth. */
>> >> OVS_ACTION_ATTR_POP_ETH, /* No argument. */
>> >> + OVS_ACTION_ATTR_CT_CLEAR, /* No argument. */
>> >>
>> >> __OVS_ACTION_ATTR_MAX, /* Nothing past this will be
>> >> accepted
>> >> * from userspace. */
>> >> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/actions.c b/net/openvswitch/actions.c
>> >> index a54a556fcdb5..db9c7f2e662b 100644
>> >> --- a/net/openvswitch/actions.c
>> >> +++ b/net/openvswitch/actions.c
>> >> @@ -1203,6 +1203,10 @@ static int do_execute_actions(struct datapath *dp,
>> >> struct sk_buff *skb,
>> >> return err == -EINPROGRESS ? 0 : err;
>> >> break;
>> >>
>> >> + case OVS_ACTION_ATTR_CT_CLEAR:
>> >> + err = ovs_ct_clear(skb, key);
>> >> + break;
>> >> +
>> >> case OVS_ACTION_ATTR_PUSH_ETH:
>> >> err = push_eth(skb, key, nla_data(a));
>> >> break;
>> >> @@ -1210,6 +1214,7 @@ static int do_execute_actions(struct datapath *dp,
>> >> struct sk_buff *skb,
>> >> case OVS_ACTION_ATTR_POP_ETH:
>> >> err = pop_eth(skb, key);
>> >> break;
>> >> +
>> >> }
>> > Unrelated change.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> if (unlikely(err)) {
>> >> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c b/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>> >> index d558e882ca0c..f9b73c726ad7 100644
>> >> --- a/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>> >> +++ b/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>> >> @@ -1129,6 +1129,18 @@ int ovs_ct_execute(struct net *net, struct sk_buff
>> >> *skb,
>> >> return err;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> +int ovs_ct_clear(struct sk_buff *skb, struct sw_flow_key *key)
>> >> +{
>> >> + if (skb_nfct(skb)) {
>> >> + nf_conntrack_put(skb_nfct(skb));
>> >> + nf_ct_set(skb, NULL, 0);
>> > Can the new conntract state be appropriate? may be IP_CT_UNTRACKED?
>> >
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + ovs_ct_fill_key(skb, key);
>> >> +
>> > I do not see need to refill the key if there is no skb-nf-ct.
>>
>> Really this is trying to just zero the CT key fields, but reuses
>> existing functions, right? This means that subsequent upcalls, for
>
> Right.
>
>> instance, won't have the outdated view of the CT state from the
>> previous lookup (that was prior to the ct_clear). I'd expect these key
>> fields to be cleared.
>
> I assumed Pravin was saying that we don't need to clear them if there is
> no conntrack state. They should already be zero.
The conntrack calls aren't going to clear it, so I don't see what else
would clear it?
If you execute ct(),ct_clear(), then the first ct will set the
values.. what will zero them?
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
