Thanks for the review. Please check my inline comments. Will fix them in v2.
Yifeng On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 3:07 PM William Tu <u9012...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the patch. > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:58 PM Yifeng Sun <pkusunyif...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Current OVS intercepts and processes all BFD packets, thus VM-2-VM > > BFD packets get lost and the recipient VM never sees them. > > Can you explain in more detail the issue? > How about this below, if I understand correctly: > " > Currently we treat any packets coming into a BFD-enabled OVS interface > as BFD packets for OVS, > if they are IP, UDP, No_frag, and having BFD DEST_PORT. However, when > consider overlay network, > customers might deployment their own BFD protocol stack, and as a > result, the BFD packets should be > forwarded to the customer instead of being processed at OVS. > " > > Yes, correct. > > > > This patch fixes it by only intercepting and processing BFD packets > > maybe not "intercepting", but here we are adding additional check. > > Yes, your rephrase is more accurate. > > destined to a configured BFD instance, and other BFD packets are made > > available to the OVS flow table for forwarding. > > > > This patch keeps BFD's backward compatibility. > > > Is there a VMware-BZ ID? > Yes, there is, will add it in v2. > > > Signed-off-by: Yifeng Sun <pkusunyif...@gmail.com> > > --- > > lib/bfd.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- > > vswitchd/vswitch.xml | 7 +++++++ > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/bfd.c b/lib/bfd.c > > index cc8c6857afa4..3c965699ace3 100644 > > --- a/lib/bfd.c > > +++ b/lib/bfd.c > > @@ -149,6 +149,9 @@ BUILD_ASSERT_DECL(BFD_PACKET_LEN == sizeof(struct > msg)); > > #define FLAGS_MASK 0x3f > > #define DEFAULT_MULT 3 > > > > +#define BFD_DEFAULT_SRC_IP 0xA9FE0101 /* 169.254.1.1 */ > > +#define BFD_DEFAULT_DST_IP 0xA9FE0100 /* 169.254.1.0 */ > > + > > struct bfd { > > struct hmap_node node; /* In 'all_bfds'. */ > > uint32_t disc; /* bfd.LocalDiscr. Key in 'all_bfds' > hmap. */ > > @@ -457,9 +460,9 @@ bfd_configure(struct bfd *bfd, const char *name, > const struct smap *cfg, > > &bfd->rmt_eth_dst); > > > > bfd_lookup_ip(smap_get_def(cfg, "bfd_src_ip", ""), > > - htonl(0xA9FE0101) /* 169.254.1.1 */, &bfd->ip_src); > > + htonl(BFD_DEFAULT_SRC_IP), &bfd->ip_src); > > bfd_lookup_ip(smap_get_def(cfg, "bfd_dst_ip", ""), > > - htonl(0xA9FE0100) /* 169.254.1.0 */, &bfd->ip_dst); > > + htonl(BFD_DEFAULT_DST_IP), &bfd->ip_dst); > > > > forwarding_if_rx = smap_get_bool(cfg, "forwarding_if_rx", false); > > if (bfd->forwarding_if_rx != forwarding_if_rx) { > > @@ -674,7 +677,14 @@ bfd_should_process_flow(const struct bfd *bfd_, > const struct flow *flow, > > memset(&wc->masks.nw_proto, 0xff, sizeof wc->masks.nw_proto); > > if (flow->nw_proto == IPPROTO_UDP > > && !(flow->nw_frag & FLOW_NW_FRAG_LATER) > > - && tp_dst_equals(flow, BFD_DEST_PORT, wc)) { > > + && tp_dst_equals(flow, BFD_DEST_PORT, wc) > > + && (bfd->ip_src == htonl(BFD_DEFAULT_SRC_IP) > > + || bfd->ip_src == flow->nw_dst)) { > > + > > + if (bfd->ip_src == flow->nw_dst) { > > + memset(&wc->masks.nw_dst, 0xffffffff, sizeof > wc->masks.nw_dst); > Why doing the above? > This is because, besides BFD port, we additionally match BFD packet's destination address with OVS's BFD interface. Therefore, OVS won't treat BFD packets targeted at VM as local BFD packets. > > btw, is it possible to add a userspace test (make check)? > > Good idea, will do in v2. > Thanks, > William > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev