On 4/25/23 08:30, Roi Dayan wrote: > > > On 20/03/2023 13:49, Eelco Chaudron wrote: >> >> >> On 20 Mar 2023, at 11:48, Ilya Maximets wrote: >> >>> On 3/20/23 11:44, Simon Horman wrote: >>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:51:48AM +0200, Roi Dayan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:04, Simon Horman wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 07:47:14PM +0200, Roi Dayan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 13/03/2023 14:16, Simon Horman wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:31:49PM +0200, Roi Dayan wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 13/03/2023 11:01, Eelco Chaudron wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 13 Mar 2023, at 9:38, Roi Dayan wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2023 12:30, Roi Dayan wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes there is a need to clean empty chains as done in >>>>>>>>>>>> delete_chains_from_netdev(). The cited commit doesn't remove >>>>>>>>>>>> the chain completely which cause adding ingress_block later to >>>>>>>>>>>> fail. >>>>>>>>>>>> This can be reproduced with adding bond as ovs port which makes ovs >>>>>>>>>>>> use ingress_block for it. >>>>>>>>>>>> While at it add the netdev name that fails to the log. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: e1e5eac5b016 ("tc: Add TCA_KIND flower to delete and get >>>>>>>>>>>> operation to avoid rtnl_lock().") >>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roi Dayan <r...@nvidia.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>>>> lib/netdev-offload-tc.c | 7 ++++--- >>>>>>>>>>>> lib/tc.c | 4 +++- >>>>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/netdev-offload-tc.c b/lib/netdev-offload-tc.c >>>>>>>>>>>> index 4fb9d9f2127a..9dd0aa2e2a85 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/netdev-offload-tc.c >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/netdev-offload-tc.c >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ delete_chains_from_netdev(struct netdev >>>>>>>>>>>> *netdev, struct tcf_id *id) >>>>>>>>>>>> */ >>>>>>>>>>>> HMAP_FOR_EACH_POP (chain_node, node, &map) { >>>>>>>>>>>> id->chain = chain_node->chain; >>>>>>>>>>>> - tc_del_flower_filter(id); >>>>>>>>>>>> + tc_del_filter(id, NULL); >>>>>>>>>>>> free(chain_node); >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2860,8 +2860,9 @@ netdev_tc_init_flow_api(struct netdev >>>>>>>>>>>> *netdev) >>>>>>>>>>>> error = tc_add_del_qdisc(ifindex, true, block_id, hook); >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> if (error && error != EEXIST) { >>>>>>>>>>>> - VLOG_INFO("failed adding ingress qdisc required for >>>>>>>>>>>> offloading: %s", >>>>>>>>>>>> - ovs_strerror(error)); >>>>>>>>>>>> + VLOG_INFO("failed adding ingress qdisc required for >>>>>>>>>>>> offloading " >>>>>>>>>>>> + "on %s: %s", >>>>>>>>>>>> + netdev_get_name(netdev), ovs_strerror(error)); >>>>>>>>>>>> return error; >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/tc.c b/lib/tc.c >>>>>>>>>>>> index 4c07e22162e7..5c32c6f971da 100644 >>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/tc.c >>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/tc.c >>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2354,7 +2354,9 @@ tc_del_filter(struct tcf_id *id, const char >>>>>>>>>>>> *kind) >>>>>>>>>>>> struct ofpbuf request; >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> request_from_tcf_id(id, 0, RTM_DELTFILTER, NLM_F_ACK, >>>>>>>>>>>> &request); >>>>>>>>>>>> - nl_msg_put_string(&request, TCA_KIND, kind); >>>>>>>>>>>> + if (kind) { >>>>>>>>>>>> + nl_msg_put_string(&request, TCA_KIND, kind); >>>>>>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>>>>>> return tc_transact(&request, NULL); >>>>>>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> hi >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> just pinging about this fix. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Guess it’s waiting on your feedback on Simon’s reply: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> EC> The changes look good to me. Will it be worth adding a test case? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> SH> From my POV, yes, I think that would be nice. >>>>>>>>>> SH> Roi, do you have any thoughts on this? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oh. thanks for the updates. >>>>>>>>> I missed the replies. if I'm not on the to/cc the mailing list emails >>>>>>>>> are going to >>>>>>>>> a different folder so I could catch emails when I am on to/cc better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, I should have taken more care to CC you. >>>>>>>> I will try to do so in future. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm having some trouble with adding a test for this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Internally I reproduce the issue with hw port with the following steps >>>>>>> >>>>>>> # ip l add dev bond0 type bond >>>>>>> # ip l set dev enp8s0f0 master bond0 >>>>>>> # ovs-vsctl add-port ov1 bond0 >>>>>>> # tc qdisc show dev bond0 >>>>>>> qdisc ingress ffff: parent ffff:fff1 ingress_block 563 ---------------- >>>>>>> # tc filter add block 563 ingress prio 1 flower action drop >>>>>>> # ovs-vsctl del-port ov1 bond0 >>>>>>> # ovs-vsctl add-port ov1 bond0 >>>>>>> # tc qdisc show dev bond0 >>>>>>> (no ingress_block) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Without adding a slave the issue doesn't happen and for the autoconf >>>>>>> test I wanted to use veth interface as a slave but the issue doesn't >>>>>>> reproduce with it as well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So we do need the fix as it solves us the issue but there is >>>>>>> something weird happening here. I'll try to look at this more >>>>>>> later this week or next. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Roi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand. >>>>>> >>>>>> FWIIW, I am happy to move forwards with the fix if you follow-up with a >>>>>> test. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Simon, >>>>> >>>>> I'm still trying this between other stuff i need to do. >>>>> I couldn't reproduce this with veth. I'm not sure why or >>>>> what it means. I'm still trying every now and then. >>>>> I would be happy if we could still go with this fix to do >>>>> chains cleaning without related to kind flower as it does >>>>> help us and doesn't break anyone else. >>>> >>>> Ilya, Eelco, all, >>>> >>>> are there any objections to taking this patch now. >>>> And allowing Roi to follow-up with a test later? >>>> >>> >>> Fine by me. Though it's a bit concerning that the issue is not >>> reproducible. Maybe we should update the comment in the code >>> stating why we need to remove not only flower chains? To avoid >>> messing up this part in the future again. >> >> +1 >> > > Hi, > > So if we can get this in that would be great.
Could you re-spin the patch adding the comment to the code on "why tc_del_filter is used instead of tc_del_flower_filter?" in the delete_chains_from_netdev() ? It's unclear from the code why it is the case and might lead to repeating the mistake in the future, especially since we do not have a test covering that case. Best regards, Ilya Maximets. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev