hi, On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jarno Rajahalme <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Nov 30, 2016, at 8:50 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:58:57PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: > >> > >>> On Nov 30, 2016, at 8:41 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:05:46PM +0100, Thomas Morin wrote: > >>>> Hi Ben, > >>>> > >>>> 2016-11-30, Ben Pfaff: > >>>>> Do you have any idea what in your OpenFlow pipeline might do that, > >>>>> i.e. is there anything especially tricky in the OpenFlow flows? > >>>>> > >>>>> Are you willing to show us your OpenFlow flow table? > >>>> > >>>> The setup involves three OVS bridges connected with patch-ports: > br-int -- > >>>> br-tun -- br-mpls, with the traffic that triggers the assert being > processed > >>>> by br-int with a NORMAL action (ie. MAC learning). > >>>> > >>>> The flows in this setup aren't particularly tricky, I think, although > I'm > >>>> not sure what qualifies as tricky or non-tricky :) > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, since yesterday I managed to identify the event that trigger > the > >>>> assert, by adding more logging before the assert and displaying the > actions > >>>> taken: > >>>> > >>>> 2016-11-29T14:44:40.126Z|00001|odp_util(revalidator45)| > WARN|commit_set_ipv4_action > >>>> assert would fail.... > >>>> 2016-11-29T14:44:40.126Z|00002|odp_util(revalidator45)|WARN| > base_flow: ip,in_port=5,dl_vlan=3,dl_vlan_pcp=0,dl_src=fa:16:3e:33: > f7:fe,dl_dst=00:00:5e:00:43:64,nw_src=0.0.0.0,nw_dst=0.0. > 0.0,nw_proto=0,nw_tos=0,nw_ecn=0,nw_ttl=0 > >>>> 2016-11-29T14:44:40.126Z|00003|odp_util(revalidator45)|WARN| flow: > tcp,in_port=5,dl_vlan=3,dl_vlan_pcp=0,dl_src=fa:16:3e:33: > f7:fe,dl_dst=00:00:5e:00:43:64,nw_src=10.0.1.22,nw_dst=10. > 0.0.3,nw_tos=0,nw_ecn=0,nw_ttl=64,tp_src=53295,tp_dst= > 8080,tcp_flags=psh|ack > >>>> 2016-11-29T14:44:40.126Z|00004|odp_util(revalidator45)|WARN| masks: > recirc_id=0xffffffff,reg0=0xffffffff,in_port=4294967295, > dl_vlan=4095,dl_vlan_pcp=7,dl_src=ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff,dl_dst= > ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff,dl_type=0xffff > >>>> 2016-11-29T14:44:40.126Z|00005|odp_util(revalidator45)|WARN| > actions: set(ipv4(src=10.0.1.22,dst=10.0.0.3,ttl=63)),set(eth(src=b8: > 2a:72:de:1b:e3,dst=00:17:cb:79:2c:01)),push_mpls(label= > 410384,tc=0,ttl=63,bos=1,eth_type=0x8847),9,set(eth(src=fa: > 16:3e:33:f7:fe,dst=00:00:5e:00:43:64)),pop_mpls(eth_type= > 0x800),push_vlan(vid=3,pcp=0),1 > >> > >> push_mpls clears L3/L4, while pop_mpls re-populates them, and then > processing the output to port 1 hits the assert? > > > > That's what I'm thinking too. > > > > Jarno, is this something you have time to look into? It'd be great, if > > you do. I'm way behind. > > I’m looking at this. > > Based on the trace given it seems that: > 1. Packet is received on br-int port 32, which outputs it via NORMAL > action over a patch port to another bridge. The only patch-port on br-int > is 2 (patch-tun). The NORMAL action adds dl_vlan=1. > 2. br-tun receives the packet on in_port 1 (patch-int), and outputs it on > it’s port 2 (patch-to-mpls) > 3. br-mpls receives the packet on it’s in_port 2 (patch-to-tun), does > pop_vlan, and outputs to it’s port 21 (ipvpn-pp-out), which is also an > patch port. > 4. br-mpls (?) receives the packet on it’s in_port 20 (ipvpn-pp-in), does > dec_ttl,push_mpls:0x8847,load:0x644c0->OXM_OF_MPLS_LABEL[], > set_field:b8:2a:72:de:1b:e3->eth_src,set_field:00:17:cb:79: > 2c:01->eth_dst,output:1 > > All this generates a megaflow: set(ipv4(src=10.0.1.23,dst=10. > 0.0.3,ttl=63)),set(eth(src=b8:2a:72:de:1b:e3,dst=00:17:cb: > 79:2c:01)),push_mpls(label=410816,tc=0,ttl=63,bos=1,eth_type=0x8847),9 > > This is only the beginning part of the trouble-some megaflow, in which > br-int sends the packet also to another port (vlan 3), and as part of that > pops the MPLS and restores the original ethernet addresses. Maybe this > would happen with the trace too, if you flushed MACs before the trace? > > The patch ports 21 and 20 appear to be in the same bridge and patched to > each other. Is this the case? > > The crashing megaflow has in_port=5,dl_vlan=3. Is this also on br-int? > > Also, OVS 2.6 is a little bit less aggressive about avoiding recirculation > after mpls operations, and I’d be interested to know if your case fails the > same way with OVS 2.6? > as patch port restores ctx->flow, if the peer bridge does push_mpls which clears L3, the assertion failure would happen. i think master has the same issue. i guess something like the following can trigger the failure in a sandbox. for NAME in hoge fuga; do ovs-vsctl add-br $NAME -- set br $NAME datapath_type=netdev -- set br $NAME "protocols=[OpenFlow13]" ovs-ofctl -OOpenFlow13 del-flows $NAME done ovs-vsctl \ add-port hoge p1 -- \ set int p1 type=patch options:peer=p2 ofport_request=5 -- \ add-port fuga p2 -- \ set int p2 type=patch options:peer=p1 ovs-ofctl -OOpenFlow13 add-flow hoge "actions=5,IN_PORT,IN_PORT" ovs-ofctl -OOpenFlow13 add-flow fuga "actions=push_mpls:0x8847,LOCAL" ovs-appctl ofproto/trace hoge "in_port=LOCAL,tcp" > Thanks, > > Jarno > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
