On 30 Sep 2022, at 17:55, Peng He wrote:

> Eelco Chaudron <[email protected]>于2022年9月30日 周五23:50写道:
>
>>
>>
>> On 23 Sep 2022, at 18:29, Peng He wrote:
>>
>>> When PMDs perform upcalls, the newly generated ukey will replace
>>> the old, however, the newly generated mageflow will be discard
>>> to reuse the old one without checking if the actions of new and
>>> old are equal.
>>>
>>> This code prevents in case someone runs dpctl/add-flow to add
>>> a dp flow with inconsistent actions with the actions of ukey,
>>> and causes more confusion.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peng He <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>  lib/dpif-netdev.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/dpif-netdev.c b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>>> index a45b46014..b316e59ef 100644
>>> --- a/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>>> +++ b/lib/dpif-netdev.c
>>> @@ -8304,7 +8304,22 @@ handle_packet_upcall(struct dp_netdev_pmd_thread
>> *pmd,
>>>           * to be locking revalidators out of making flow modifications.
>> */
>>>          ovs_mutex_lock(&pmd->flow_mutex);
>>>          netdev_flow = dp_netdev_pmd_lookup_flow(pmd, key, NULL);
>>> -        if (OVS_LIKELY(!netdev_flow)) {
>>> +        if (OVS_UNLIKELY(netdev_flow)) {
>>> +            struct dp_netdev_actions *old_act =
>>> +                dp_netdev_flow_get_actions(netdev_flow);
>>> +
>>> +            if ((add_actions->size != old_act->size) ||
>>> +                    memcmp(old_act->actions, add_actions->data,
>>> +                                             add_actions->size)) {
>>> +
>>> +               struct dp_netdev_actions *new_act =
>>> +                   dp_netdev_actions_create(add_actions->data,
>>> +                                            add_actions->size);
>>> +
>>> +               ovsrcu_set(&netdev_flow->actions, new_act);
>>> +               ovsrcu_postpone(dp_netdev_actions_free, old_act);
>>
>> Do we really need this patch? Asking as this is in the fastpath code?
>> And it only happens if someone is messing with dpctl commands, which they
>> should not.
>
>
> Yes, I just point out there is inconsistent here,for most cases the code
> will never run into here.

Ok, please add a comment explain this in the next version.

>>
>> I we want it, we should add a good comment on why it’s there.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> +            }
>>> +        } else {
>>>              netdev_flow = dp_netdev_flow_add(pmd, &match, &ufid,
>>>                                               add_actions->data,
>>>                                               add_actions->size,
>> orig_in_port);
>>> --
>>> 2.25.1
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dev mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
>>
>> --
> hepeng

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev

Reply via email to