I sent a patch to fix this on OVS master. After it is reviewed I’ll backport it to branch-2.5 (it only needs trivial fixes to apply, so you may want to try that as well).
Jarno > On Dec 1, 2016, at 5:57 PM, Jarno Rajahalme <ja...@ovn.org> wrote: > > >> On Nov 30, 2016, at 8:50 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org <mailto:b...@ovn.org>> >> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 06:58:57PM -0800, Jarno Rajahalme wrote: >>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2016, at 8:41 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org >>>> <mailto:b...@ovn.org>> 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? > > Thanks, > > Jarno > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list d...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
