[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpXDG4YdiUrqFhn7fxsbTBMBdR4x-ZQQ3U5E_xSPf-PANQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:11:07 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: broken behaviour of TC filter delete
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:21 AM Roman Mashak <mrv@...atatu.com> wrote:
>
> So _before_ commit f71e0ca4db187af7c44987e9d21e9042c3046070 step 6 would
> return -ENOENT with "Error: Filter with specified priority/protocol not
> found." and _after_ the commit it returns -EINVAL (Error: Cannot find
> specified filter chain.)
>
> ENOENT seems to be more logical to return when there's no more filter to delete.
Yeah, at least we should keep ENOENT for compatibility.
The bug here is chain 0 is gone after the last filter is gone,
so when you delete the filter again, it treats it as you specify
chain 0 which does not exist, so it hits EINVAL before ENOENT.
I am not sure how to fix this properly.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists