> On Dec 2, 2016, at 2:01 AM, Takashi YAMAMOTO <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi, > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Jarno Rajahalme <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On Nov 30, 2016, at 8:50 PM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected] <mailto:[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] > >>> <mailto:[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 agree, and I thought this would have been trivial to reproduce, and the fact that you included 2 output actions after the patch port output is crucial, as the first one will silently ignore setting IP headers as the base dl_type is MPLS at that point, before the MPLS POP has been committed. > i think master has the same issue. > Yep. MPLS after traversing patch port does not work right, and it looks like MPLS push in group buckets may have the same issue. It seems we should undo the MPLS push(es) when returning from a patch port or a group bucket, but should not do that if there are no further actions. Jarno > 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] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev > <https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
