Bug 14875
Summary: | iproute2: problems with "tc filter replace" and u32 hashing filters | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Networking | Reporter: | Stanislav (stas) |
Component: | Other | Assignee: | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo (acme) |
Status: | RESOLVED WILL_NOT_FIX | ||
Severity: | low | CC: | stephen |
Priority: | P1 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Kernel Version: | 2.6.32 | Subsystem: | |
Regression: | No | Bisected commit-id: |
Description
Stanislav
2009-12-25 02:23:58 UTC
(switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the bugzilla web interface). On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 02:24:00 GMT bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14875 > > Summary: iproute2: problems with "tc filter replace" and u32 > hashing filters > Product: Networking > Version: 2.5 > Kernel Version: 2.6.32 > Platform: All > OS/Version: Linux > Tree: Mainline > Status: NEW > Severity: low > Priority: P1 > Component: Other > AssignedTo: acme@ghostprotocols.net > ReportedBy: stas@crypt.org.ru > Regression: No > > > I'm using u32 hashing filters and have some issues with "tc filter replace" > command. > > Issue 1: "tc filter replace" command does not replace filters inside u32 hash > tables and works like "tc filter add" command. > > Consider the following scenario: > > 1. Create qdisc and hashing filters for 10.0.0.0/24 network > > tc qdisc add dev eth1 root handle 1: htb > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 pref 10 protocol ip u32 > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 pref 10 handle 100: protocol ip \ > u32 divisor 256 > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 pref 10 protocol ip u32 ht 800:: \ > match ip src 10.0.0.0/24 hashkey mask 0x000000ff at 12 link 100: > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1:0 protocol ip pref 30 u32 \ > match u32 0x0 0x0 at 0 police mtu 1 action drop > > 2. Add filter for IP-address 10.0.0.1 > > tc class add dev eth1 parent 1: classid 1:3 htb rate 256kibit ceil 256kibit > tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 1:3 handle 3:0 pfifo limit 50 > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 u32 ht 100:1: \ > match ip src 10.0.0.1 flowid 1:3 > > 3. Try to replace filter for 10.0.0.1 with a new one for 10.0.0.2 > > tc filter replace dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 u32 ht 100:1: \ > match ip src 10.0.0.2 flowid 1:3 > > I expect that filter for 10.0.0.1 in hash table 100:1: have been replaced by > new > rule for 10.0.0.2. But "tc -p filter show dev eth1" outputs two filters for > both 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2: > > filter parent 1: protocol ip pref 10 u32 fh 100:1:800 order 2048 key ht 100 > bkt 1 flowid 1:3 > match IP src 10.0.0.1/32 > filter parent 1: protocol ip pref 10 u32 fh 100:1:801 order 2049 key ht 100 > bkt 1 flowid 1:3 > match IP dst 10.0.0.2/32 > > It means that "tc filter replace" command did not delete the filter > 100:1:800, > but attached a new one with handle 100:1:801, just like the "tc filter add" > command. I think it is a wrong behaviour for "replace" command. > > > Issue 2: It seems that tc does not provide any syntax to replace a single > filter > inside the hash table. The command with explicit handle number > > tc filter replace dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 u32 ht 100:1:800 \ > match ip dst 10.0.0.3 flowid 1:3 > > gives the error message: "ht" must be a hash table. > > The similar command with "handle 100:1:800" prints "What is "handle"?" and > usage information. > > The following sequence of "del" and "add" commands works: > > tc filter del dev eth1 parent 1: pref 10 handle 100:1:800 u32 > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 u32 ht 100:1: \ > match ip src 10.0.0.1 flowid 1:3 > > Note, that "del" command works only when I use "pref 10" (preference value > for hashing filter 100:), but in "add" command I specified "pref 20" > (preference for 100:1:800 filter). This is little counterintuitive, but not > very important. > > > My suggestions about fixing of "tc filter replace" behaviour. > > 1. The "replace" command with "ht" argument > > tc filter replace dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 u32 ht 100:1: match ... > > should empty the whole table 100:1: and add a new filter with handle > 100:1:800. > > 2. The command with "handle" argument > > tc filter replace dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 u32 handle 100:1:800 match ... > > should replace only one filter with handle 100:1:800. > > Thanks for attention. Andrew Morton wrote: > (switched to email. Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the > bugzilla web interface). > >> http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14875 >> >> I'm using u32 hashing filters and have some issues with "tc filter replace" >> command. >> >> Issue 1: "tc filter replace" command does not replace filters inside u32 >> hash >> tables and works like "tc filter add" command. >> >> Consider the following scenario: >> >> ... >> 2. Add filter for IP-address 10.0.0.1 >> >> tc class add dev eth1 parent 1: classid 1:3 htb rate 256kibit ceil 256kibit >> tc qdisc add dev eth1 parent 1:3 handle 3:0 pfifo limit 50 >> tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 u32 ht 100:1: \ >> match ip src 10.0.0.1 flowid 1:3 >> >> 3. Try to replace filter for 10.0.0.1 with a new one for 10.0.0.2 >> >> tc filter replace dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 u32 ht 100:1: \ >> match ip src 10.0.0.2 flowid 1:3 >> >> I expect that filter for 10.0.0.1 in hash table 100:1: have been replaced by >> new >> rule for 10.0.0.2. But "tc -p filter show dev eth1" outputs two filters for >> both 10.0.0.1 and 10.0.0.2: >> >> filter parent 1: protocol ip pref 10 u32 fh 100:1:800 order 2048 key ht 100 >> bkt 1 flowid 1:3 >> match IP src 10.0.0.1/32 >> filter parent 1: protocol ip pref 10 u32 fh 100:1:801 order 2049 key ht 100 >> bkt 1 flowid 1:3 >> match IP dst 10.0.0.2/32 >> >> It means that "tc filter replace" command did not delete the filter >> 100:1:800, >> but attached a new one with handle 100:1:801, just like the "tc filter add" >> command. I think it is a wrong behaviour for "replace" command. You need to specify a handle for the filters to get replaced. tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 handle 100:1 u32 ht 100:1: \ match ip src 10.0.0.1 flowid 1:3 tc filter replace dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 handle 100:1 u32 ht 100:1: \ match ip src 10.0.0.2 flowid 1:3 works fine. >> Issue 2: It seems that tc does not provide any syntax to replace a single >> filter >> inside the hash table. The command with explicit handle number >> >> tc filter replace dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 u32 ht 100:1:800 \ >> match ip dst 10.0.0.3 flowid 1:3 >> >> gives the error message: "ht" must be a hash table. >> >> The similar command with "handle 100:1:800" prints "What is "handle"?" and >> usage information. Handles consist of a major and minor number, not three numbers, see above. On 05.01.2010 7:46, Patrick McHardy wrote: >>> Issue 1: "tc filter replace" command does not replace filters inside u32 >>> hash >>> tables and works like "tc filter add" command. > > You need to specify a handle for the filters to get replaced. > > tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 handle 100:1 u32 ht 100:1: \ > match ip src 10.0.0.1 flowid 1:3 > > tc filter replace dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 handle 100:1 u32 ht 100:1: \ > match ip src 10.0.0.2 flowid 1:3 > > works fine. Thank you, this solves the first issue, but it's little odd that "replace" command require both "handle" and "ht" parameters, whereas "tc filter del" command takes only a "handle" parameter. Me and some of my colleagues are going to write a "tc-u32" and "tc-flow" manpages to document the tc syntax for u32 filter and for new "flow" filter. These documents could be useful for other people, and I might want to publish them. May I ask you, who is the current maintainer of iproute2 manpages? >>> Issue 2: It seems that tc does not provide any syntax to replace a single >>> filter inside the hash table. The command with explicit handle number > > Handles consist of a major and minor number, not three numbers, > see above. Yes, but in case of u32 filters one can add a number of rules to a single hash bucket. These filters will be numbered as follows: 100:1:800, 100:1:801, etc. And "tc filter ..." commands accept a handles like 100:1:800 without any errors. The problem is that there is no way to address these filters using "replace" command, whereas "del/add" commands perform well. After execution of the following commands tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 handle 100:1 u32 ht 100:1: \ match ip src 10.0.0.1 flowid 1:3 tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 handle 100:1 u32 ht 100:1: \ match ip src 10.0.0.2 flowid 1:3 we will have 100:1:800 filter that matches 10.0.0.1, and 100:1:801 that matches 10.0.0.2. The following command tc filter replace dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 handle 100:1:801 u32 ht 100:1: \ match ip src 10.0.0.3 flowid 1:3 gives no error messages but does not replace the IP address in the filter 100:1:801, and adds one more filter with number 100:1:801 for IP 10.0.0.3. As I wrote before, the sequence of "del" and "add" commands works OK with three-number handles. tc filter del dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 handle 100:1:801 u32 tc filter add dev eth1 parent 1: pref 20 u32 ht 100:1: \ match ip src 10.0.0.3 flowid 1:3 Once again, thanks for a quick reply. |