Date:	Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:32:22 +0900
From:	Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>
To:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>
Cc:	Ben Pfaff <blp@...ira.com>, Pravin Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
	"dev@...nvswitch.org" <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Ravi K <rkerur@...il.com>,
	Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@...inux.co.jp>,
	Joe Stringer <joe@...d.net.nz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.39 7/7] datapath: Add basic MPLS support to kernel

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 02:17:50PM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:21:33PM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 03:38:21PM -0500, Jesse Gross wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au> wrote:
> >> >> > @@ -616,6 +736,13 @@ int ovs_execute_actions(struct datapath *dp, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >> >> >                 goto out_loop;
> >> >> >         }
> >> >> >
> >> >> > +       /* Needed to initialise inner protocol on kernels older
> >> >> > +        * than v3.11 where skb->inner_protocol is not present
> >> >> > +        * and compatibility code uses the OVS_CB(skb) to store
> >> >> > +        * the inner protocol.
> >> >> > +        */
> >> >> > +       ovs_skb_set_inner_protocol(skb, skb->protocol);
> >> >>
> >> >> The comment makes it sound like this code should just be deleted when
> >> >> upstreaming. However, I believe that we still need to initialize this
> >> >> field, right? Is this the best place do it or should it be conditional
> >> >> on adding a first MPLS header? (i.e. what happens if inner_protocol is
> >> >> already set and the packet simply passes through OVS?)
> >> >
> >> > I believe there are several problems here.
> >> >
> >> > The first one, which my comment was written around is that I think that if
> >> > inner_protocol is a field of struct sk_buff then we can rely on it already
> >> > being initialised.  However, if we are using compatibility code, where
> >> > inner_protcol is called in the callback field of struct sk_buff then I
> >> > think that OVS needs to initialise it.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure that it's true that inner_protocol is already initialized
> >> - I grepped the tree and the only assignment that I found is in
> >> skbuff.c in __copy_skb_header().
> >
> > My assumption was that it would be initialised to zero,
> > primarily due to the behaviour of __alloc_skb_head().
> > Perhaps the core code should be fixed to make my assumption true?
> 
> I misunderstood then - I think you can assume that it is initialized
> to zero, I though you meant that it was initialized to a protocol
> value. However, I then still have my original question - don't we need
> to set it here in both cases since we're not just 'initializing' it
> but actually setting a protocol?

I believe that you are correct and it needs to be set in both cases.

> >> One other consideration in the OVS case - with recirculation we may
> >> hit this code multiple times and the difference in behavior could be
> >> surprising. However, on the other hand, we need to be careful because
> >> skb->cb is not guaranteed to be initialized to zero.
> >
> > Thanks, that is also not something that I had considered.
> >
> > I'm not sure, but I think that we can rely on skb->cb
> > not being clobbered between rounds of recirculation.
> > Or at the very least I think we could save and restore it
> > as necessary.
> 
> Yes, it should be safe to assume this.
> 
> > So I think if we could be careful to make sure that inner_protocol
> > is in a sane state the first time we see the skb but not
> > each time it is recirculated then I think things should work out.
> >
> > In my current implementation of recirculation the datapath
> > side is driven ovs_dp_process_received_packet(). So by my reasoning
> > above I think it would make sense to reset the inner_protocol there
> > and in ovs_packet_cmd_execute() rather than in ovs_execute_actions()
> > which each of those functions call.
> 
> I think that would work, however, I wonder if it's the right place in
> general, independent of this compatibility issue. I guess it still
> seems like the ideal thing to do is to move this as close to where it
> is necessary as possible, specifically in mpls_push(). Is there a
> reason to not put it there (again, other than the out-of-tree
> compatibility issues)?

I agree that should work, out-of-tree compatibility issues aside.

Perhaps a solution is to have a conditional set_inner_protocol call inside
push_mpls, where the condition is that inner_protocol is zero.
And a reset_inner_protocol call earlier on, a call that sets inner_protocol
to zero only if the compatibility code is in use and thus it resides in
struct ovs_gso_cb. This call could be remove once the compatibility
code is no longer needed, that is once kernels older than 3.11 are no
longer supported.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists