[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <82731477-58a3-bbb7-cfdc-d612df01882a@mellanox.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2018 15:27:49 +0800
From: Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: gerlitz.or@...il.com, stephen@...workplumber.org,
marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Subject: Re: [patch iproute2 v5 1/3] lib/libnetlink: Add a function
rtnl_talk_msg
2018/1/3 12:08, David Ahern:
> On 1/2/18 7:55 PM, Chris Mi wrote:
>> diff --git a/lib/libnetlink.c b/lib/libnetlink.c
>> index 00e6ce0c..cc02a139 100644
>> --- a/lib/libnetlink.c
>> +++ b/lib/libnetlink.c
>> @@ -581,32 +581,34 @@ static void rtnl_talk_error(struct nlmsghdr *h, struct nlmsgerr *err,
>> strerror(-err->error));
>> }
>>
>> -static int __rtnl_talk(struct rtnl_handle *rtnl, struct nlmsghdr *n,
>> - struct nlmsghdr **answer,
>> - bool show_rtnl_err, nl_ext_ack_fn_t errfn)
>> +static int __rtnl_talk_msg(struct rtnl_handle *rtnl, struct msghdr *m,
>> + struct nlmsghdr **answer,
>> + bool show_rtnl_err, nl_ext_ack_fn_t errfn)
>> {
>> - int status;
>> - unsigned int seq;
>> - struct nlmsghdr *h;
>> + int iovlen = m->msg_iovlen;
>> + unsigned int seq = 0;
>> + int i, status;
>> + char *buf;
>> +
>> struct sockaddr_nl nladdr = { .nl_family = AF_NETLINK };
>> - struct iovec iov = {
>> - .iov_base = n,
>> - .iov_len = n->nlmsg_len
>> - };
>> + struct iovec iov, *v;
>> + struct nlmsghdr *h;
>> struct msghdr msg = {
>> .msg_name = &nladdr,
>> .msg_namelen = sizeof(nladdr),
>> .msg_iov = &iov,
>> .msg_iovlen = 1,
>> };
>> - char *buf;
> Reverse xmas tree is the coding standard for net code. Please adhere to
> it. Only dependencies between variables are an acceptable exception.
OK, got it.
>
> Some of those (struct nlmsghdr *h and struct iovec *v) can be moved to
> the for loop which aligns with your intentions of grouping variables.
Done.
>
>>
>> - n->nlmsg_seq = seq = ++rtnl->seq;
>> -
>> - if (answer == NULL)
>> - n->nlmsg_flags |= NLM_F_ACK;
>> + for (i = 0; i < iovlen; i++) {
>> + v = &m->msg_iov[i];
>> + h = v->iov_base;
>> + h->nlmsg_seq = seq = ++rtnl->seq;
> doesn't seq need to track the recvmsg loop? I think for batching you
> want it to start at the first seq number and then in the recvmsg loop
> increment it.
Yes, it is a bug. Thanks for your test case.
>
> As it stands this file:
> $ cat tc.batch
> filter add dev eth2 ingress protocol ip pref 21 flower dst_ip
> 192.168.1.0/16 action drop
> filter add dev eth2 ingress protocol ip pref 22 flower dst_ip
> 192.168.2.0/16 action drop
> filter add dev eth2 ingress protocol ip pref 22 flower dst_ip
> 192.168.3.0/16 action drop
> filter add dev eth2 ingress protocol ip pref 24 flower dst_ip
> 192.168.4.0/16 action drop
> filter add dev eth2 ingress protocol ip pref 25 flower dst_ip
> 192.168.5.0/16 action drop
>
> does not give me an error message:
> $ tc -b tc.batch -bs 5
> <no output>
>
> Yet it failed to insert all filters:
> $ tc filter show dev eth2 ingress
> filter protocol ip pref 21 flower chain 0
> filter protocol ip pref 21 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
> eth_type ipv4
> dst_ip 192.168.1.0/16
> not_in_hw
> action order 1: gact action drop
> random type none pass val 0
> index 1 ref 1 bind 1
>
> filter protocol ip pref 22 flower chain 0
> filter protocol ip pref 22 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
> eth_type ipv4
> dst_ip 192.168.2.0/16
> not_in_hw
> action order 1: gact action drop
> random type none pass val 0
> index 2 ref 1 bind 1
>
> filter protocol ip pref 24 flower chain 0
> filter protocol ip pref 24 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
> eth_type ipv4
> dst_ip 192.168.4.0/16
> not_in_hw
> action order 1: gact action drop
> random type none pass val 0
> index 3 ref 1 bind 1
>
> filter protocol ip pref 25 flower chain 0
> filter protocol ip pref 25 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
> eth_type ipv4
> dst_ip 192.168.5.0/16
> not_in_hw
> action order 1: gact action drop
> random type none pass val 0
> index 4 ref 1 bind 1
>
After fixing it, the test result is:
# tc -b tc.batch -bs 5
RTNETLINK answers: File exists
We have an error talking to the kernel, -1
Command failed 1.txt:0-4
We can't tell exactly which command causes this error, so we give a
range which is less than the batch size.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists