On 20/03/2023 13:49, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>
>
> On 20 Mar 2023, at 11:48, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/23 11:44, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:51:48AM +0200, Roi Dayan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14/03/2023 13:04, Simon Horman wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 07:47:14PM +0200, Roi Dayan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 13/03/2023 14:16, Simon Horman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 12:31:49PM +0200, Roi Dayan wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 13/03/2023 11:01, Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 13 Mar 2023, at 9:38, Roi Dayan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 22/02/2023 12:30, Roi Dayan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Sometimes there is a need to clean empty chains as done in
>>>>>>>>>>> delete_chains_from_netdev(). The cited commit doesn't remove
>>>>>>>>>>> the chain completely which cause adding ingress_block later to fail.
>>>>>>>>>>> This can be reproduced with adding bond as ovs port which makes ovs
>>>>>>>>>>> use ingress_block for it.
>>>>>>>>>>> While at it add the netdev name that fails to the log.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Fixes: e1e5eac5b016 ("tc: Add TCA_KIND flower to delete and get
>>>>>>>>>>> operation to avoid rtnl_lock().")
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Roi Dayan <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> lib/netdev-offload-tc.c | 7 ++++---
>>>>>>>>>>> lib/tc.c | 4 +++-
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/netdev-offload-tc.c b/lib/netdev-offload-tc.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 4fb9d9f2127a..9dd0aa2e2a85 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/netdev-offload-tc.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/netdev-offload-tc.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ delete_chains_from_netdev(struct netdev
>>>>>>>>>>> *netdev, struct tcf_id *id)
>>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>>> HMAP_FOR_EACH_POP (chain_node, node, &map) {
>>>>>>>>>>> id->chain = chain_node->chain;
>>>>>>>>>>> - tc_del_flower_filter(id);
>>>>>>>>>>> + tc_del_filter(id, NULL);
>>>>>>>>>>> free(chain_node);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2860,8 +2860,9 @@ netdev_tc_init_flow_api(struct netdev *netdev)
>>>>>>>>>>> error = tc_add_del_qdisc(ifindex, true, block_id, hook);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> if (error && error != EEXIST) {
>>>>>>>>>>> - VLOG_INFO("failed adding ingress qdisc required for
>>>>>>>>>>> offloading: %s",
>>>>>>>>>>> - ovs_strerror(error));
>>>>>>>>>>> + VLOG_INFO("failed adding ingress qdisc required for
>>>>>>>>>>> offloading "
>>>>>>>>>>> + "on %s: %s",
>>>>>>>>>>> + netdev_get_name(netdev), ovs_strerror(error));
>>>>>>>>>>> return error;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/tc.c b/lib/tc.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 4c07e22162e7..5c32c6f971da 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/tc.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/tc.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -2354,7 +2354,9 @@ tc_del_filter(struct tcf_id *id, const char
>>>>>>>>>>> *kind)
>>>>>>>>>>> struct ofpbuf request;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> request_from_tcf_id(id, 0, RTM_DELTFILTER, NLM_F_ACK,
>>>>>>>>>>> &request);
>>>>>>>>>>> - nl_msg_put_string(&request, TCA_KIND, kind);
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (kind) {
>>>>>>>>>>> + nl_msg_put_string(&request, TCA_KIND, kind);
>>>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>>>> return tc_transact(&request, NULL);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> just pinging about this fix.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Guess it’s waiting on your feedback on Simon’s reply:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> EC> The changes look good to me. Will it be worth adding a test case?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SH> From my POV, yes, I think that would be nice.
>>>>>>>>> SH> Roi, do you have any thoughts on this?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh. thanks for the updates.
>>>>>>>> I missed the replies. if I'm not on the to/cc the mailing list emails
>>>>>>>> are going to
>>>>>>>> a different folder so I could catch emails when I am on to/cc better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I should have taken more care to CC you.
>>>>>>> I will try to do so in future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm having some trouble with adding a test for this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Internally I reproduce the issue with hw port with the following steps
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # ip l add dev bond0 type bond
>>>>>> # ip l set dev enp8s0f0 master bond0
>>>>>> # ovs-vsctl add-port ov1 bond0
>>>>>> # tc qdisc show dev bond0
>>>>>> qdisc ingress ffff: parent ffff:fff1 ingress_block 563 ----------------
>>>>>> # tc filter add block 563 ingress prio 1 flower action drop
>>>>>> # ovs-vsctl del-port ov1 bond0
>>>>>> # ovs-vsctl add-port ov1 bond0
>>>>>> # tc qdisc show dev bond0
>>>>>> (no ingress_block)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without adding a slave the issue doesn't happen and for the autoconf
>>>>>> test I wanted to use veth interface as a slave but the issue doesn't
>>>>>> reproduce with it as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we do need the fix as it solves us the issue but there is
>>>>>> something weird happening here. I'll try to look at this more
>>>>>> later this week or next.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Roi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIIW, I am happy to move forwards with the fix if you follow-up with a
>>>>> test.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>
>>>> I'm still trying this between other stuff i need to do.
>>>> I couldn't reproduce this with veth. I'm not sure why or
>>>> what it means. I'm still trying every now and then.
>>>> I would be happy if we could still go with this fix to do
>>>> chains cleaning without related to kind flower as it does
>>>> help us and doesn't break anyone else.
>>>
>>> Ilya, Eelco, all,
>>>
>>> are there any objections to taking this patch now.
>>> And allowing Roi to follow-up with a test later?
>>>
>>
>> Fine by me. Though it's a bit concerning that the issue is not
>> reproducible. Maybe we should update the comment in the code
>> stating why we need to remove not only flower chains? To avoid
>> messing up this part in the future again.
>
> +1
>
Hi,
So if we can get this in that would be great.
Thanks,
Roi
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
