netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@gmail.com>
To: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fib_rules: Resolve goto rules target on delete
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:44:47 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <11d8ff28-a667-8d2d-9b90-304ee76ee94a@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170620.124040.491492963882254347.davem@davemloft.net>


> From: Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 15:44:47 +0300
> 
>> We should avoid marking goto rules unresolved when their
>> target is actually reachable after rule deletion.
>>
>> Consolder following sample scenario:
>>
>>   # ip -4 ru sh
>>   0:      from all lookup local
>>   32000:  from all goto 32100
>>   32100:  from all lookup main
>>   32100:  from all lookup default
>>   32766:  from all lookup main
>>   32767:  from all lookup default
>>
>>   # ip -4 ru del pref 32100 table main
>>   # ip -4 ru sh
>>   0:      from all lookup local
>>   32000:  from all goto 32100 [unresolved]
>>   32100:  from all lookup default
>>   32766:  from all lookup main
>>   32767:  from all lookup default
>>
>> After removal of first rule with preference 32100 we
>> mark all goto rules as unreachable, even when rule with
>> same preference as removed one still present.
>>
>> Check if next rule with same preference is available
>> and make all rules with goto action pointing to it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Serhey Popovych <serhe.popovych@gmail.com>
> 
> Applied, thanks.
> 
> It would be awesome if you could distill the above into a test case that
> could be run under tools/testing/selftests/networking.
Yes, I already think about testing too.

Actually I have series of  patches to improve fib_rules support both in
core and per protocol (merge suppress, callback, reduce per network
namespace memory consumption - useful for docker setups, more precise
validation of netlink configuration messages, additional matching
facilities etc) so testing is  definitely required before my changes
went upstream!

About testing implementation: I see there is no infrastructure
to test netlink based configuration in tools/testing. How to make
this better? Use libnl, write scripts that use iproute2 utilities?
Where I can get additional to Documentation/kselftest.txt information?

> 
> Thanks!
> 

-- 
Thanks, Serhey

      reply	other threads:[~2017-06-21  7:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-16 12:44 fib_rules: Resolve goto rules target on delete Serhey Popovych
2017-06-20 16:40 ` David Miller
2017-06-21  7:44   ` Serhey Popovych [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=11d8ff28-a667-8d2d-9b90-304ee76ee94a@gmail.com \
    --to=serhe.popovych@gmail.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).