[dpdk-dev,v2,2/2] lib/lpm:fix an initialization issue of valid_group in the delete_depth_small()
| Message ID | 1446210879-14242-3-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers |
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Delivered-To: patchwork@dpdk.org Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43FCD8EA0; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:14:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 444648E9F for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:14:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2015 06:14:51 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,218,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="807472138" Received: from shvmail01.sh.intel.com ([10.239.29.42]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2015 06:14:50 -0700 Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (shecgisg004.sh.intel.com [10.239.29.89]) by shvmail01.sh.intel.com with ESMTP id t9UDEokS021663; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:14:50 +0800 Received: from shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id t9UDElGT014291; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:14:49 +0800 Received: (from jijiangl@localhost) by shecgisg004.sh.intel.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/Submit) id t9UDEkbg014287; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:14:46 +0800 From: Jijiang Liu <jijiang.liu@intel.com> To: dev@dpdk.org Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 21:14:39 +0800 Message-Id: <1446210879-14242-3-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.7.12.2 In-Reply-To: <1446210879-14242-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> References: <1446210879-14242-1-git-send-email-jijiang.liu@intel.com> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] lib/lpm:fix an initialization issue of valid_group in the delete_depth_small() X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> |
Commit Message
Jijiang Liu
Oct. 30, 2015, 1:14 p.m. UTC
Fixes an initialization issue of 'valid_group' in the delete_depth_small function.
In this function, use new rte_lpm_tbl8_entry we call A to replace the old rte_lpm_tbl8_entry. But the valid_group do not set VALID, so it
will be INVALID.
Then when adding a new route which depth is > 24,the tbl8_alloc() function will search the rte_lpm_tbl8_entrys to find INVALID
valid_group, and it will return the A to the add_depth_big function, so A's data is overridden.
Signed-off-by: NaNa <nana.nn@alibaba-inc.com>
---
lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Comments
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:14:39PM +0800, Jijiang Liu wrote: Title can be shortened to: "lpm: fix initialization of valid_group field" > Fixes an initialization issue of 'valid_group' in the delete_depth_small function. > > In this function, use new rte_lpm_tbl8_entry we call A to replace the old rte_lpm_tbl8_entry. But the valid_group do not set VALID, so it > will be INVALID. > > Then when adding a new route which depth is > 24,the tbl8_alloc() function will search the rte_lpm_tbl8_entrys to find INVALID > valid_group, and it will return the A to the add_depth_big function, so A's data is overridden. > Not sure this message is entirely clear. How about: When adding an entry to a tbl8, the .valid_group field should always be set, so that future adds do not accidently find and use this table, thinking it is currently invalid, i.e. unused, and thereby overwrite existing entries. > Signed-off-by: NaNa <nana.nn@alibaba-inc.com> > > --- > lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 1 + > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c > index 57ec2f0..3981452 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c > +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c > @@ -769,6 +769,7 @@ delete_depth_small(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, > > struct rte_lpm_tbl8_entry new_tbl8_entry = { > .valid = VALID, > + .valid_group = VALID, > .depth = sub_rule_depth, > .next_hop = lpm->rules_tbl > [sub_rule_index].next_hop, > -- > 1.7.7.6 >
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:22:27PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:14:39PM +0800, Jijiang Liu wrote: > > Title can be shortened to: "lpm: fix initialization of valid_group field" > > > Fixes an initialization issue of 'valid_group' in the delete_depth_small function. > > > > In this function, use new rte_lpm_tbl8_entry we call A to replace the old rte_lpm_tbl8_entry. But the valid_group do not set VALID, so it > > will be INVALID. > > > > Then when adding a new route which depth is > 24,the tbl8_alloc() function will search the rte_lpm_tbl8_entrys to find INVALID > > valid_group, and it will return the A to the add_depth_big function, so A's data is overridden. > > > > Not sure this message is entirely clear. > How about: > When adding an entry to a tbl8, the .valid_group field should always be set, > so that future adds do not accidently find and use this table, thinking it is > currently invalid, i.e. unused, and thereby overwrite existing entries. > > > Signed-off-by: NaNa <nana.nn@alibaba-inc.com> > > Assuming we get a little cleanup on commit title and log message (Thomas, perhaps just a rewrite on commit?): Acked-by: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
2015-10-30 14:24, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:22:27PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:14:39PM +0800, Jijiang Liu wrote: > > > > Title can be shortened to: "lpm: fix initialization of valid_group field" > > > > > Fixes an initialization issue of 'valid_group' in the delete_depth_small function. > > > > > > In this function, use new rte_lpm_tbl8_entry we call A to replace the old rte_lpm_tbl8_entry. But the valid_group do not set VALID, so it > > > will be INVALID. > > > > > > Then when adding a new route which depth is > 24,the tbl8_alloc() function will search the rte_lpm_tbl8_entrys to find INVALID > > > valid_group, and it will return the A to the add_depth_big function, so A's data is overridden. > > > > > > > Not sure this message is entirely clear. > > How about: > > When adding an entry to a tbl8, the .valid_group field should always be set, > > so that future adds do not accidently find and use this table, thinking it is > > currently invalid, i.e. unused, and thereby overwrite existing entries. > > > > > Signed-off-by: NaNa <nana.nn@alibaba-inc.com> > > > > Assuming we get a little cleanup on commit title and log message (Thomas, perhaps > just a rewrite on commit?): Giving the name of a field in the title is not really useful for the overview. It's better to talk about the use case which is fixed.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > 2015-10-30 14:24, Bruce Richardson: > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 02:22:27PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:14:39PM +0800, Jijiang Liu wrote: > > > > > > Title can be shortened to: "lpm: fix initialization of valid_group > field" > > > > > > > Fixes an initialization issue of 'valid_group' in the > delete_depth_small function. > > > > > > > > In this function, use new rte_lpm_tbl8_entry we call A to replace > > > > the old rte_lpm_tbl8_entry. But the valid_group do not set VALID, so > it will be INVALID. > > > > > > > > Then when adding a new route which depth is > 24,the tbl8_alloc() > > > > function will search the rte_lpm_tbl8_entrys to find INVALID > valid_group, and it will return the A to the add_depth_big function, so > A's data is overridden. > > > > > > > > > > Not sure this message is entirely clear. > > > How about: > > > When adding an entry to a tbl8, the .valid_group field should always > be set, > > > so that future adds do not accidently find and use this table, > thinking it is > > > currently invalid, i.e. unused, and thereby overwrite existing > entries. > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: NaNa <nana.nn@alibaba-inc.com> > > > > > > Assuming we get a little cleanup on commit title and log message > > (Thomas, perhaps just a rewrite on commit?): > > Giving the name of a field in the title is not really useful for the > overview. > It's better to talk about the use case which is fixed. "lpm: fix incorrect reuse of already allocated tbl8" ??
> -----Original Message----- > From: Richardson, Bruce > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:22 PM > To: Liu, Jijiang > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] lib/lpm:fix an initialization issue of > valid_group in the delete_depth_small() > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:14:39PM +0800, Jijiang Liu wrote: > > Title can be shortened to: "lpm: fix initialization of valid_group field" Ok > > Fixes an initialization issue of 'valid_group' in the delete_depth_small > function. > > > > In this function, use new rte_lpm_tbl8_entry we call A to replace the > > old rte_lpm_tbl8_entry. But the valid_group do not set VALID, so it will be > INVALID. > > > > Then when adding a new route which depth is > 24,the tbl8_alloc() > > function will search the rte_lpm_tbl8_entrys to find INVALID valid_group, > and it will return the A to the add_depth_big function, so A's data is > overridden. > > > > Not sure this message is entirely clear. > How about: > When adding an entry to a tbl8, the .valid_group field should always be set, > so that future adds do not accidently find and use this table, thinking it is > currently invalid, i.e. unused, and thereby overwrite existing entries. It is ok for me. Nana, what do you think? > > Signed-off-by: NaNa <nana.nn@alibaba-inc.com> > > > > --- > > lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c | 1 + > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c index > > 57ec2f0..3981452 100644 > > --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c > > @@ -769,6 +769,7 @@ delete_depth_small(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t > > ip_masked, > > > > struct rte_lpm_tbl8_entry new_tbl8_entry = { > > .valid = VALID, > > + .valid_group = VALID, > > .depth = sub_rule_depth, > > .next_hop = lpm->rules_tbl > > [sub_rule_index].next_hop, > > -- > > 1.7.7.6 > >
diff --git a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c index 57ec2f0..3981452 100644 --- a/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c +++ b/lib/librte_lpm/rte_lpm.c @@ -769,6 +769,7 @@ delete_depth_small(struct rte_lpm *lpm, uint32_t ip_masked, struct rte_lpm_tbl8_entry new_tbl8_entry = { .valid = VALID, + .valid_group = VALID, .depth = sub_rule_depth, .next_hop = lpm->rules_tbl [sub_rule_index].next_hop,