| Message ID | 1ef12e7d378d5b1dad4f056a2225d5ae9d5326cb.1608330201.git.gnault@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Ahern |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [iproute2] tc: flower: fix json output with mpls lse | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:25:32PM +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote: > The json output of the TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPTS attribute was invalid. > > Example: > > $ tc filter add dev eth0 ingress protocol mpls_uc flower mpls \ > lse depth 1 label 100 \ > lse depth 2 label 200 > > $ tc -json filter show dev eth0 ingress > ...{"eth_type":"8847", > " mpls":[" lse":["depth":1,"label":100], > " lse":["depth":2,"label":200]]}... Is there any problem with this patch? It's archived in patchwork, but still in state "new". Therefore I guess it was dropped before being considered for review. This problem precludes the implementation of a kernel selftest for TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPTS. Just let me know if I should respin. Thanks, William
On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:48:56 +0100 Guillaume Nault wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:25:32PM +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote: > > The json output of the TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPTS attribute was invalid. > > > > Example: > > > > $ tc filter add dev eth0 ingress protocol mpls_uc flower mpls \ > > lse depth 1 label 100 \ > > lse depth 2 label 200 > > > > $ tc -json filter show dev eth0 ingress > > ...{"eth_type":"8847", > > " mpls":[" lse":["depth":1,"label":100], > > " lse":["depth":2,"label":200]]}... > > Is there any problem with this patch? > It's archived in patchwork, but still in state "new". Therefore I guess > it was dropped before being considered for review. Erm, that's weird. I think Alexei mentioned that auto-archiving is turned on in the new netdevbpf patchwork instance. My guess is it got auto archived :S Here is the list of all patches that are Archived as New: https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?state=1&archive=true Should any of these have been reviewed?
On 1/7/21 10:13 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:48:56 +0100 Guillaume Nault wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:25:32PM +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote: >>> The json output of the TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPTS attribute was invalid. >>> >>> Example: >>> >>> $ tc filter add dev eth0 ingress protocol mpls_uc flower mpls \ >>> lse depth 1 label 100 \ >>> lse depth 2 label 200 >>> >>> $ tc -json filter show dev eth0 ingress >>> ...{"eth_type":"8847", >>> " mpls":[" lse":["depth":1,"label":100], >>> " lse":["depth":2,"label":200]]}... >> >> Is there any problem with this patch? >> It's archived in patchwork, but still in state "new". Therefore I guess >> it was dropped before being considered for review. > > Erm, that's weird. I think Alexei mentioned that auto-archiving is > turned on in the new netdevbpf patchwork instance. My guess is it got > auto archived :S > > Here is the list of all patches that are Archived as New: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?state=1&archive=true > > Should any of these have been reviewed? > Interesting. I thought some patches had magically disappeared - and some of those are in that list.
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:39:03AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 1/7/21 10:13 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Thu, 7 Jan 2021 17:48:56 +0100 Guillaume Nault wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 11:25:32PM +0100, Guillaume Nault wrote: > >>> The json output of the TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPTS attribute was invalid. > >>> > >>> Example: > >>> > >>> $ tc filter add dev eth0 ingress protocol mpls_uc flower mpls \ > >>> lse depth 1 label 100 \ > >>> lse depth 2 label 200 > >>> > >>> $ tc -json filter show dev eth0 ingress > >>> ...{"eth_type":"8847", > >>> " mpls":[" lse":["depth":1,"label":100], > >>> " lse":["depth":2,"label":200]]}... > >> > >> Is there any problem with this patch? > >> It's archived in patchwork, but still in state "new". Therefore I guess > >> it was dropped before being considered for review. > > > > Erm, that's weird. I think Alexei mentioned that auto-archiving is > > turned on in the new netdevbpf patchwork instance. My guess is it got > > auto archived :S > > > > Here is the list of all patches that are Archived as New: > > > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/list/?state=1&archive=true > > > > Should any of these have been reviewed? > > > > > Interesting. I thought some patches had magically disappeared - and some > of those are in that list. Okay, but, in the end, should I repost this patch?
On 1/11/21 3:57 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> Okay, but, in the end, should I repost this patch?
I think your patches are covered, but you should check the repo to make
sure.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:30:32AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 1/11/21 3:57 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote: > > Okay, but, in the end, should I repost this patch? > > I think your patches are covered, but you should check the repo to make > sure. This patch ("tc: flower: fix json output with mpls lse") doesn't appear in the upstream tree.
On 1/11/21 8:44 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote: > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:30:32AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: >> On 1/11/21 3:57 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote: >>> Okay, but, in the end, should I repost this patch? >> >> I think your patches are covered, but you should check the repo to make >> sure. > > This patch ("tc: flower: fix json output with mpls lse") doesn't appear > in the upstream tree. > ok, you'll need to re-send.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 09:02:04AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > On 1/11/21 8:44 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 08:30:32AM -0700, David Ahern wrote: > >> On 1/11/21 3:57 AM, Guillaume Nault wrote: > >>> Okay, but, in the end, should I repost this patch? > >> > >> I think your patches are covered, but you should check the repo to make > >> sure. > > > > This patch ("tc: flower: fix json output with mpls lse") doesn't appear > > in the upstream tree. > > > ok, you'll need to re-send. Will do, thanks.
diff --git a/tc/f_flower.c b/tc/f_flower.c index 00c919fd..27731078 100644 --- a/tc/f_flower.c +++ b/tc/f_flower.c @@ -2476,7 +2476,7 @@ static void flower_print_u32(const char *name, struct rtattr *attr) print_uint(PRINT_ANY, name, namefrm, rta_getattr_u32(attr)); } -static void flower_print_mpls_opt_lse(const char *name, struct rtattr *lse) +static void flower_print_mpls_opt_lse(struct rtattr *lse) { struct rtattr *tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPT_LSE_MAX + 1]; struct rtattr *attr; @@ -2493,7 +2493,8 @@ static void flower_print_mpls_opt_lse(const char *name, struct rtattr *lse) RTA_PAYLOAD(lse)); print_nl(); - open_json_array(PRINT_ANY, name); + print_string(PRINT_FP, NULL, " lse", NULL); + open_json_object(NULL); attr = tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPT_LSE_DEPTH]; if (attr) print_hhu(PRINT_ANY, "depth", " depth %u", @@ -2511,10 +2512,10 @@ static void flower_print_mpls_opt_lse(const char *name, struct rtattr *lse) attr = tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPT_LSE_TTL]; if (attr) print_hhu(PRINT_ANY, "ttl", " ttl %u", rta_getattr_u8(attr)); - close_json_array(PRINT_JSON, NULL); + close_json_object(); } -static void flower_print_mpls_opts(const char *name, struct rtattr *attr) +static void flower_print_mpls_opts(struct rtattr *attr) { struct rtattr *lse; int rem; @@ -2523,11 +2524,12 @@ static void flower_print_mpls_opts(const char *name, struct rtattr *attr) return; print_nl(); - open_json_array(PRINT_ANY, name); + print_string(PRINT_FP, NULL, " mpls", NULL); + open_json_array(PRINT_JSON, "mpls"); rem = RTA_PAYLOAD(attr); lse = RTA_DATA(attr); while (RTA_OK(lse, rem)) { - flower_print_mpls_opt_lse(" lse", lse); + flower_print_mpls_opt_lse(lse); lse = RTA_NEXT(lse, rem); }; if (rem) @@ -2650,7 +2652,7 @@ static int flower_print_opt(struct filter_util *qu, FILE *f, flower_print_ip_attr("ip_ttl", tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_IP_TTL], tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_IP_TTL_MASK]); - flower_print_mpls_opts(" mpls", tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPTS]); + flower_print_mpls_opts(tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPTS]); flower_print_u32("mpls_label", tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_LABEL]); flower_print_u8("mpls_tc", tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_TC]); flower_print_u8("mpls_bos", tb[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_BOS]);
The json output of the TCA_FLOWER_KEY_MPLS_OPTS attribute was invalid. Example: $ tc filter add dev eth0 ingress protocol mpls_uc flower mpls \ lse depth 1 label 100 \ lse depth 2 label 200 $ tc -json filter show dev eth0 ingress ...{"eth_type":"8847", " mpls":[" lse":["depth":1,"label":100], " lse":["depth":2,"label":200]]}... This is invalid as the arrays, introduced by "[", can't contain raw string:value pairs. Those must be enclosed into "{}" to form valid json ojects. Also, there are spurious whitespaces before the mpls and lse strings because of the indentation used for normal output. Fix this by putting all LSE parameters (depth, label, tc, bos and ttl) into the same json object. The "mpls" key now directly contains a list of such objects. Also, handle strings differently for normal and json output, so that json strings don't get spurious indentation whitespaces. Normal output isn't modified. The json output now looks like: $ tc -json filter show dev eth0 ingress ...{"eth_type":"8847", "mpls":[{"depth":1,"label":100}, {"depth":2,"label":200}]}... Fixes: eb09a15c12fb ("tc: flower: support multiple MPLS LSE match") Signed-off-by: Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com> --- tc/f_flower.c | 16 +++++++++------- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)