From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acl: fix invalid results for rule with zero
	priority
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:57:14 +0200
Message-ID: <2653701.FErX7ZCc7E@xps>
References: <1535129226-25510-1-git-send-email-konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
 <1912621.YvyjYky8PI@xps> <1537878167.10481.46.camel@debian.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
To: Luca Boccassi <bluca@debian.org>,
 Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [64.147.123.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 772721B12B
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:57:18 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <1537878167.10481.46.camel@debian.org>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

25/09/2018 14:22, Luca Boccassi:
> On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 11:56 +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 24/08/2018 18:47, Konstantin Ananyev:
> > > If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules
> > > that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results.
> > > The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-match
> > > nodes.
> > > See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79.
> > > The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero
> > > to be a valid priority for the rule.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library")
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> > 
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > 
> > Applied with below title, thanks
> > 	acl: forbid rule with priority zero
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This patch is marked for stable, but it changes an enum in a public
> header so it looks like an ABI breakage? Have I got it wrong?

-	RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 0,
+	RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 1,

In my understanding, the change is not breaking the ABI because
the old minimal value (0) can still be used, with the same side effect.

The new value is just removing a side effect for newly compiled apps.

Konstantin, am I right?