[email protected] wrote on 30/08/2017 07:33:13 PM: > The current implementation of ovsdb-server caches only non-conditional > monitors, that is, monitors for every table row, not those that monitor > only rows that match some condition. To figure out which monitors are > conditional, the code track the number of tables that have conditions that > are uniformly true (cond->n_true_cnd) and compares that against the number > of tables in the condition (shash_count(&cond->tables)). If they are the > same, then every table has (effectively) no condition, and so > cond->conditional is set to false. > > However, the implementation was buggy. The function that adds a new > table condition, ovsdb_monitor_table_condition_create(), only updated > cond->conditional if the table condition being added was true. This is > wrong; only adding a non-true condition can actually change > cond->conditional. This commit fixes the problem by always recalculating > cond->conditional. > > The most visible side effect of cond->conditional being true when it > should be false, as caused by this bug, was that conditional monitors were > being mixed with unconditional monitors for the purpose of caching. This > meant that, if a client requested a conditional monitor that was the > same as an unconditional one, except for the condition, then the client > would receive the cached data previously sent for the unconditional one. > This commit fixes the problem. > > Signed-off-by: Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> > --- > ovsdb/monitor.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/ovsdb/monitor.c b/ovsdb/monitor.c > index b98100703091..7a5c2f905560 100644 > --- a/ovsdb/monitor.c > +++ b/ovsdb/monitor.c > @@ -651,8 +651,8 @@ ovsdb_monitor_table_condition_create( > ovsdb_condition_clone(&mtc->new_condition, &mtc->old_condition); > if (ovsdb_condition_is_true(&mtc->old_condition)) { > condition->n_true_cnd++; > - ovsdb_monitor_session_condition_set_mode(condition); > } > + ovsdb_monitor_session_condition_set_mode(condition); > > return NULL; > } > -- > 2.10.2 >
Yes. It is a bug. Thanks. Acked-by: Liran Schour <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
