On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:36:31PM +0200, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 06:57:22 -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > But... wait a minute. We don't support adding devices name as vxlan_sys*.
> > Such
> > names are reserved. I think that means we could probably rely on the names.
>
> They are not. You can easily create an interface named vxlan_sys_4789
> by 'ip link add'.
>
I mean by using ovs-vsctl add-port. At vswitchd/bridge.c:iface_do_create,
if (netdev_is_reserved_name(iface_cfg->name)) {
VLOG_WARN("could not create interface %s, name is reserved",
iface_cfg->name);
error = EINVAL;
goto error;
}
netdev_is_reserved_name checks for names starting with the dpif_port prefix from
vports. That includes vxlan_sys.
[root@devconf2 ~]# ovs-vsctl add-port br0 vxlan_sys_8888
ovs-vsctl: Error detected while setting up 'vxlan_sys_8888'. See ovs-vswitchd
log for details.
[root@devconf2 ~]# tail /var/log/openvswitch/ovs-vswitchd.log
2016-04-18T07:34:01.422Z|00032|vlog|INFO|opened log file
/var/log/openvswitch/ovs-vswitchd.log
2016-04-18T09:30:34.142Z|00033|bridge|WARN|could not create interface
vxlan_sys_8888, name is reserved
> > That should be taken care of. We would get EINVAL, and that's why I return
> > EOPNOTSUPP if that's the case. Then, the code falls back to the compat mode.
>
> We would not get EINVAL. The interface will be created, netlink will
> return success but the interface won't be in the metadata mode.
>
> The same applies to all other configuration, e.g. VXLAN-GPE. The
> netlink command will succeed, the interface will be created but it
> won't be GPE.
>
> It sucks completely, it's a big gap in netlink design but all my
> attempts to solve this were rejected upstream.
I will test that and add the verification code.
Thanks.
Cascardo.
>
> Jiri
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
