Re: [ovs-dev] [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: openvswitch: add drop action

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 18:51:19 +0200 Ilya Maximets wrote:
> Makes sense.  I wasn't sure that's a good solution from a kernel perspective
> either.  It's better than defining all these reasons, IMO, but it's not good
> enough to be considered acceptable, I agree.
> 
> How about we define just 2 reasons, e.g. OVS_DROP_REASON_EXPLICIT_ACTION and
> OVS_DROP_REASON_EXPLICIT_ACTION_WITH_ERROR (exact names can be different) ?
> One for an explicit drop action with a zero argument and one for an explicit
> drop with non-zero argument.
> 
> The exact reason for the error can be retrieved by other means, i.e by looking
> at the datapath flow dump or OVS logs/traces.
> 
> This way we can give a user who is catching packet drop traces a signal that
> there was something wrong with an OVS flow and they can look up exact details
> from the userspace / flow dump.
> 
> The point being, most of the flows will have a zero as a drop action argument,
> i.e. a regular explicit packet drop.  It will be hard to figure out which flow
> exactly we're hitting without looking at the full flow dump.  And if the value
> is non-zero, then it should be immediately obvious which flow is to blame from
> the dump, as we should not have a lot of such flows.
> 
> This would still allow us to avoid a maintenance burden of defining every case,
> which are fairly meaningless for the kernel itself, while having 99% of the
> information we may need.
> 
> Jakub, do you think this will be acceptable?

As far as I understand what you're proposing, yes :)

> Eric, Adrian, Aaron, do you see any problems with such implementation?
> 
> P.S. There is a plan to add more drop reasons for other places in openvswitch
>      module to catch more regular types of drops like memory issues or upcall
>      failures.  So, the drop reason subsystem can be extended later.
>      The explicit drop action is a bit of an odd case here.

If you have more than ~4 OvS specific reasons, I wonder if it still
makes sense to create a reason group/subsystem for OvS (a'la WiFi)?