Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751694AbaDASfp (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:35:45 -0400 Received: from na6sys009bog017.obsmtp.com ([74.125.150.74]:59152 "HELO na6sys009bog017.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751351AbaDASfn (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Apr 2014 14:35:43 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 445 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 14:35:42 EDT MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3586fbc4.12f75.1451de4826d.Coremail.asuka.com@163.com> References: <1395957398-24546-1-git-send-email-asuka.com@163.com> <4fd27e6c.c96a.14512e82018.Coremail.asuka.com@163.com> <3586fbc4.12f75.1451de4826d.Coremail.asuka.com@163.com> From: Jesse Gross Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 11:27:56 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] openvswitch: supply a dummy err_handler of gre_cisco_protocol to prevent kernel crash To: wei zhang Cc: David Miller , "dev@openvswitch.org" , netdev , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 8:24 AM, wei zhang wrote: > At 2014-04-01 08:49:53,"Jesse Gross" wrote: >>On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 5:12 AM, wei zhang wrote: >>> At 2014-03-29 06:02:25,"Jesse Gross" wrote: > >>> Maybe I misunderstand something? I think if we discard all packet pass to us >>> when we use gre vport, new gre_cisco_protocol which has lower priority could >>> not see the packet intended to it. >> >>That's true but in this case it would also not see any data packets, >>so I don't think that situation would work well anyways. >> >>> I checked the implementation of the ipgre_err(), which has be called before >>> the err_handler of gre vport. It use the the (local address, remote address, key) >>> to distinguish the packet which is realy intended to it, although it could not >>> always get the key from the icmp packet. Should we do as the same as it? >>> I'm not sure this is feasible, any advice is appreciate. >> >>OVS does flow based matching rather than using a static set of >>configuration parameters, so everything "matches" in some way >>(although the result might be to drop). > > So the flow based match could dynamically determine by the ovs daemon, we could > not find out the belonging of the packet as far as we call ovs_dp_upcall(), isn't it? That's right - and since the OVS flow table always has a default behavior (even if it is drop or send to controller) there's never a packet that isn't considered to be destined to OVS once it is received. If this makes sense to you, would you mind submitting the patch you had earlier formally with a commit message and signed off by line? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/