[net-next,1/2] net/ipv6: Handle onlink flag with multipath routes

Message ID 20180313154010.31623-2-dsahern@gmail.com
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: David Miller
Headers show
Series
  • net/ipv6: Handle onlink flag with multipath routes
Related show

Commit Message

David Ahern March 13, 2018, 3:40 p.m.
For multipath routes the ONLINK flag is specified per nexthop in rtnh_flags
(as opposed to rtm_flags for unicast routes). Update ip6_route_multipath_add
to set fc_flags based on rtnh_flags.

Fixes: fc1e64e1092f ("net/ipv6: Add support for onlink flag")
Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
---
 net/ipv6/route.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Comments

David Miller March 16, 2018, 3:40 p.m. | #1
From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:40:09 -0700

> For multipath routes the ONLINK flag is specified per nexthop in rtnh_flags
> (as opposed to rtm_flags for unicast routes). Update ip6_route_multipath_add
> to set fc_flags based on rtnh_flags.
> 
> Fixes: fc1e64e1092f ("net/ipv6: Add support for onlink flag")
> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> ---
>  net/ipv6/route.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
> index f0ae58424c45..b223dffa8521 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> @@ -4166,6 +4166,7 @@ static int ip6_route_multipath_add(struct fib6_config *cfg,
>  				r_cfg.fc_encap_type = nla_get_u16(nla);
>  		}
>  
> +		r_cfg.fc_flags |= (rtnh->rtnh_flags & RTNH_F_ONLINK);
>  		rt = ip6_route_info_create(&r_cfg, extack);
>  		if (IS_ERR(rt)) {
>  			err = PTR_ERR(rt);

Hmmm, this actually "accumulates" the flag rather than sets it.

Have you thought about what should happen if the cfg has RTNH_F_ONLINK
set?

I think you should either change this logic to a true 'set', or adjust
your commit message to address this aspect of the new behavior.

Thank you.
David Ahern March 16, 2018, 3:45 p.m. | #2
On 3/16/18 8:40 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:40:09 -0700
> 
>> For multipath routes the ONLINK flag is specified per nexthop in rtnh_flags
>> (as opposed to rtm_flags for unicast routes). Update ip6_route_multipath_add
>> to set fc_flags based on rtnh_flags.
>>
>> Fixes: fc1e64e1092f ("net/ipv6: Add support for onlink flag")
>> Signed-off-by: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  net/ipv6/route.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
>> index f0ae58424c45..b223dffa8521 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
>> @@ -4166,6 +4166,7 @@ static int ip6_route_multipath_add(struct fib6_config *cfg,
>>  				r_cfg.fc_encap_type = nla_get_u16(nla);
>>  		}
>>  
>> +		r_cfg.fc_flags |= (rtnh->rtnh_flags & RTNH_F_ONLINK);
>>  		rt = ip6_route_info_create(&r_cfg, extack);
>>  		if (IS_ERR(rt)) {
>>  			err = PTR_ERR(rt);
> 
> Hmmm, this actually "accumulates" the flag rather than sets it.
> 
> Have you thought about what should happen if the cfg has RTNH_F_ONLINK
> set?

yes, that's why the test script adds cases with the ONLINK flag set for
both nexthops, then one with it on the first nexthop only, and one with
the flag only on the second nexthop.

If you look at the full loop 'cfg' is the variable with the user data,
and r_cfg is the 'local loop version' so r_cfg.fc_flags gets reset for
each nexthop:

        while (rtnh_ok(rtnh, remaining)) {
                memcpy(&r_cfg, cfg, sizeof(*cfg));
		...
		r_cfg.fc_flags |= (rtnh->rtnh_flags & RTNH_F_ONLINK);
		rt = ip6_route_info_create(&r_cfg, extack);


> 
> I think you should either change this logic to a true 'set', or adjust
> your commit message to address this aspect of the new behavior.

I can update the commit message.
David Miller March 16, 2018, 4:38 p.m. | #3
From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:45:10 -0700

> On 3/16/18 8:40 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> Hmmm, this actually "accumulates" the flag rather than sets it.
>> 
>> Have you thought about what should happen if the cfg has RTNH_F_ONLINK
>> set?
> 
> yes, that's why the test script adds cases with the ONLINK flag set for
> both nexthops, then one with it on the first nexthop only, and one with
> the flag only on the second nexthop.
> 
> If you look at the full loop 'cfg' is the variable with the user data,
> and r_cfg is the 'local loop version' so r_cfg.fc_flags gets reset for
> each nexthop:
> 
>         while (rtnh_ok(rtnh, remaining)) {
>                 memcpy(&r_cfg, cfg, sizeof(*cfg));
> 		...
> 		r_cfg.fc_flags |= (rtnh->rtnh_flags & RTNH_F_ONLINK);
> 		rt = ip6_route_info_create(&r_cfg, extack);

Right.

>> I think you should either change this logic to a true 'set', or adjust
>> your commit message to address this aspect of the new behavior.
> 
> I can update the commit message.

Please do, thanks David.
David Ahern March 16, 2018, 6:18 p.m. | #4
On 3/16/18 9:38 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:45:10 -0700
> 
>> On 3/16/18 8:40 AM, David Miller wrote:
>>> Hmmm, this actually "accumulates" the flag rather than sets it.
>>>
>>> Have you thought about what should happen if the cfg has RTNH_F_ONLINK
>>> set?
>>
>> yes, that's why the test script adds cases with the ONLINK flag set for
>> both nexthops, then one with it on the first nexthop only, and one with
>> the flag only on the second nexthop.
>>
>> If you look at the full loop 'cfg' is the variable with the user data,
>> and r_cfg is the 'local loop version' so r_cfg.fc_flags gets reset for
>> each nexthop:
>>
>>         while (rtnh_ok(rtnh, remaining)) {
>>                 memcpy(&r_cfg, cfg, sizeof(*cfg));
>> 		...
>> 		r_cfg.fc_flags |= (rtnh->rtnh_flags & RTNH_F_ONLINK);
>> 		rt = ip6_route_info_create(&r_cfg, extack);
> 
> Right.
> 
>>> I think you should either change this logic to a true 'set', or adjust
>>> your commit message to address this aspect of the new behavior.
>>
>> I can update the commit message.
> 
> Please do, thanks David.
> 

And it looks like patch 1 needs to be in 'net'; did not realize the ipv6
ONLINK support is already in 4.16. I will send the patch adding tests
separately for net-next.

Patch

diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
index f0ae58424c45..b223dffa8521 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
@@ -4166,6 +4166,7 @@  static int ip6_route_multipath_add(struct fib6_config *cfg,
 				r_cfg.fc_encap_type = nla_get_u16(nla);
 		}
 
+		r_cfg.fc_flags |= (rtnh->rtnh_flags & RTNH_F_ONLINK);
 		rt = ip6_route_info_create(&r_cfg, extack);
 		if (IS_ERR(rt)) {
 			err = PTR_ERR(rt);