Re: [PATCH RFC net-next 10/20] net/ipv6: move expires into rt6_info

[David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>]

On 2/28/18 12:21 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 03:55:14PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
>> On 2/26/18 3:28 PM, Wei Wang wrote:
>>>> @@ -213,11 +234,6 @@ static inline void rt6_set_expires(struct rt6_info *rt, unsigned long expires)
>>>>
>>>>  static inline void rt6_update_expires(struct rt6_info *rt0, int timeout)
>>>>  {
>>>> -       struct rt6_info *rt;
>>>> -
>>>> -       for (rt = rt0; rt && !(rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_EXPIRES); rt = rt->from);
>>>> -       if (rt && rt != rt0)
>>>> -               rt0->dst.expires = rt->dst.expires;
>>>
>>> I was wondering if we need to retain the above logic. It makes sure
>>> dst.expires gets synced to its "parent" route. But  it might be hard
>>> because after your change, we can no longer use rt->from to refer to
>>> the "parent".
>>
>> As I understand it, the FIB entries are cloned into pcpu, uncached and
>> exception routes. We should never have an rt6_info that ever points back
>> more than 1 level -- ie., the dst rt6_info points to a from representing
>> the original FIB entry.
> Agree on at most 1 level.
> 
>>
>> After my change 'from' will still point to the FIB entry as a fib6_info
>> which has its own expires.
>>
>> When I looked this code I was really confused. At best, the for loop
>> above sets rt0->dst.expires to some value based on the 'from' but then
>> the very next line calls dst_set_expires with the passed in timeout value.
> My understanding is, the rt0 first inherits the expires from its rt0->from.
> 
> The following dst_set_expires() set a new timeout if the new timeout
> is earlier than the existing expires.  I think it is essentially
> taking a min.
> 
> One question, would avoid taking the min cause the rt0 somehow
> have a longer expires than its parent (or f6i after this series)?

I believe the current logic expands to:

static inline void rt6_update_expires(struct rt6_info *rt0, int timeout)
{
        if (!(rt0->rt6i_flags & RTF_EXPIRES) && rt0->from)
                rt0->dst.expires = rt0->from->dst.expires;

        dst_set_expires(&rt0->dst, timeout);
        rt0->rt6i_flags |= RTF_EXPIRES;
}


With the fib6_info I can keep that logic with:

static inline void rt6_update_expires(struct rt6_info *rt0, int timeout)
{
        if (!(rt0->rt6i_flags & RTF_EXPIRES) && rt0->from)
                rt0->dst.expires = rt0->from->expires;

        dst_set_expires(&rt0->dst, timeout);
        rt0->rt6i_flags |= RTF_EXPIRES;
}