IPv4 FIB 0.0.0.0/0 route doesn't work when first route added to FIB and using TBL24_8
https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1160
Bug ID: 1160
Summary: IPv4 FIB 0.0.0.0/0 route doesn't work when first route
added to FIB and using TBL24_8
Product: DPDK
Version: 22.11
Hardware: x86
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: Normal
Component: other
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
Target Milestone: ---
I think there's an issue with rte_fib which occurs when both of the following conditions are met:
1. A route of 0.0.0.0/0 is the first route added to the FIB
2. The FIB is configured with type RTE_FIB_DIR24_8
Under these conditions, rte_fib_add returns with no error but subsequent lookups that should hit the 0.0.0.0/0 route (and miss all others) return the default next hop from the FIB config, not the next hop specified when adding the 0.0.0.0/0.
If another route with a longer prefix is added first, the 0.0.0.0/0 route works as expected.
void test0(void) {
struct rte_fib_conf config = {
.max_routes = 1024,
.rib_ext_sz = 0,
.default_nh = 0xDEFA,
.type = RTE_FIB_DIR24_8, /* test passes for RTE_FIB_DUMMY */
.dir24_8.num_tbl8 = 256,
.dir24_8.nh_sz = RTE_FIB_DIR24_8_4B,
};
struct rte_fib* fib = rte_fib_create("test-fib0", rte_socket_id(),
&config);
RTE_ASSERT(fib);
int ret;
/* works as expected if we add another route before the default route */
//ret = rte_fib_add(fib, RTE_IPV4(192,168,0,0), 24, 0x1);
//RTE_ASSERT(0 == ret);
uint64_t next_hop;
uint32_t ip = RTE_IPV4(10,0,0,1);
ret = rte_fib_lookup_bulk(fib, &ip, &next_hop, 1);
RTE_ASSERT(0 == ret);
RTE_ASSERT(next_hop == 0xDEFA);
ret = rte_fib_add(fib, RTE_IPV4(0,0,0,0), 0, 0x1);
RTE_ASSERT(0 == ret);
ret = rte_fib_lookup_bulk(fib, &ip, &next_hop, 1);
RTE_ASSERT(0 == ret);
printf("nh: 0x%"PRIx64"\n", next_hop);
RTE_ASSERT(next_hop == 1); /* assertion fail */
}Signature · 2 lines
You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1160
Thomas Monjalon ([email protected]) changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED--- Comment #1 from Thomas Monjalon ([email protected]) --- Resolved in http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk/commit/?id=880bc2b5f3
Signature · 2 lines
You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.