Great! Thanks for confirming! Regards, Florin
> On Mar 16, 2023, at 8:29 PM, Zhang Dongya <fortitude.zh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > yes, this is exactly what I want do, this patch works as expected, thanks a > lot. > > Florin Coras <fcoras.li...@gmail.com <mailto:fcoras.li...@gmail.com>> > 于2023年3月15日周三 01:22写道： >> Hi, >> >> Are you looking for behavior similar to the one when random local ports are >> allocated when, if port is used, we check if the 5-tuple is available? >> >> Don’t think we explicitly supported this before but here’s a patch [1]. >> >> Regards, >> Florin >> >> [1] https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/vpp/+/38486 >> >> >>> On Mar 14, 2023, at 12:56 AM, Zhang Dongya <fortitude.zh...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:fortitude.zh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Just use this patch and the connection can be reconnected after closed. >>> >>> However, I find another possible bug when using local ip + local port for >>> different target server due to transport_endpoint_mark_used return error >>> if it find local ip + port being created. >>> >>> I think it should increase the refcnt instead if it find 6 tuple is unique. >>> >>>> static int >>>> transport_endpoint_mark_used (u8 proto, ip46_address_t *ip, u16 port) >>>> { >>>> transport_main_t *tm = &tp_main; >>>> local_endpoint_t *lep; >>>> u32 tei; >>>> >>>> ASSERT (vlib_get_thread_index () <= transport_cl_thread ()); >>>> // BUG??? maybe should allow reuse ??? >>>> tei = >>>> transport_endpoint_lookup (&tm->local_endpoints_table, proto, ip, >>>> port); >>>> if (tei != ENDPOINT_INVALID_INDEX) >>>> return SESSION_E_PORTINUSE; >>>> >>>> /* Pool reallocs with worker barrier */ >>>> lep = transport_endpoint_alloc (); >>>> clib_memcpy_fast (&lep->ep.ip, ip, sizeof (*ip)); >>>> lep->ep.port = port; >>>> lep->proto = proto; >>>> lep->refcnt = 1; >>>> >>>> transport_endpoint_table_add (&tm->local_endpoints_table, proto, >>>> &lep->ep, >>>> lep - tm->local_endpoints); >>>> >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>> >>> Florin Coras <fcoras.li...@gmail.com <mailto:fcoras.li...@gmail.com>> >>> 于2023年3月14日周二 11:38写道： >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Could you try this out [1]? I’ve hit this issue myself today but with udp >>>> sessions. Unfortunately, as you’ve correctly pointed out, we were forcing >>>> a cleanup only on the non-fixed local port branch. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Florin >>>> >>>> [1] https://gerrit.fd.io/r/c/vpp/+/38473 >>>> >>>>> On Mar 13, 2023, at 7:35 PM, Zhang Dongya <fortitude.zh...@gmail.com >>>>> <mailto:fortitude.zh...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi list, >>>>> >>>>> We have update coded from the upstream session&tcp changes to our code >>>>> base and find a possible bug which cause tcp connection can't be >>>>> established anymore. >>>>> >>>>> Our scenario is that we will connect to a remote tcp server with >>>>> specified local port and local ip, however, new vpp code have introduced >>>>> a lcl_endpts_freelist which will be either flushed when pending local >>>>> endpoint exceeded the limit (32) or when transport_alloc_local_port is >>>>> called. >>>>> >>>>> However, since we specify the local port and local ip and the total >>>>> session count is limited (< 32), in this case, the >>>>> transport_cleanup_freelist will never be called which cause the previous >>>>> session which use the specified local port and local ip will not be >>>>> released after the session aborted. >>>>> >>>>> I think we should also try to free the list in such case as I did in the >>>>> following code: >>>>> >>>>>> int >>>>>> transport_alloc_local_endpoint (u8 proto, transport_endpoint_cfg_t * >>>>>> rmt_cfg, >>>>>> ip46_address_t * lcl_addr, u16 * lcl_port) >>>>>> { >>>>>> // ZDY: >>>>>> transport_main_t *tm = &tp_main; >>>>>> transport_endpoint_t *rmt = (transport_endpoint_t *) rmt_cfg; >>>>>> session_error_t error; >>>>>> int port; >>>>>> >>>>>> /* >>>>>> * Find the local address >>>>>> */ >>>>>> if (ip_is_zero (&rmt_cfg->peer.ip, rmt_cfg->peer.is_ip4)) >>>>>> { >>>>>> error = transport_find_local_ip_for_remote >>>>>> (&rmt_cfg->peer.sw_if_index, >>>>>> rmt, lcl_addr); >>>>>> if (error) >>>>>> return error; >>>>>> } >>>>>> else >>>>>> { >>>>>> /* Assume session layer vetted this address */ >>>>>> clib_memcpy_fast (lcl_addr, &rmt_cfg->peer.ip, >>>>>> sizeof (rmt_cfg->peer.ip)); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> /* >>>>>> * Allocate source port >>>>>> */ >>>>>> if (rmt_cfg->peer.port == 0) >>>>>> { >>>>>> port = transport_alloc_local_port (proto, lcl_addr, rmt_cfg); >>>>>> if (port < 1) >>>>>> return SESSION_E_NOPORT; >>>>>> *lcl_port = port; >>>>>> } >>>>>> else >>>>>> { >>>>>> port = clib_net_to_host_u16 (rmt_cfg->peer.port); >>>>>> *lcl_port = port; >>>>>> >>>>>> // ZDY: need add this to to cleanup because in specified src port >>>>>> // case, we will not run to transport_alloc_local_port, then >>>>>> // freelist will only be freeed when list is full (>32). >>>>>> /* Cleanup freelist if need be */ >>>>>> if (vec_len (tm->lcl_endpts_freelist)) >>>>>> transport_cleanup_freelist (); >>>>>> >>>>>> return transport_endpoint_mark_used (proto, lcl_addr, port); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> return 0; >>>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#22718): https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/22718 Mute This Topic: https://lists.fd.io/mt/97596886/21656 Group Owner: vpp-dev+ow...@lists.fd.io Unsubscribe: https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/leave/1480452/21656/631435203/xyzzy [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
