-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 547
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Avoid removing a VRF routing table when there are pending creation entries in gRouteBulker #3477
Open
stephenxs
wants to merge
5
commits into
sonic-net:master
Choose a base branch
from
stephenxs:fix-uninitialized-ipv4-bytes
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Avoid removing a VRF routing table when there are pending creation entries in gRouteBulker #3477
stephenxs
wants to merge
5
commits into
sonic-net:master
from
stephenxs:fix-uninitialized-ipv4-bytes
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
stephenxs
changed the title
Set bytes to 0 before copying IPv4 addresses/masks to avoid uninitialized bytes
Erase VRF routing table only if there is no pending creation entries in gRouteBulker
Jan 21, 2025
stephenxs
changed the title
Erase VRF routing table only if there is no pending creation entries in gRouteBulker
Avoid removing a VRF routing table when there are pending creation entries in gRouteBulker
Jan 22, 2025
stephenxs
force-pushed
the
fix-uninitialized-ipv4-bytes
branch
from
January 22, 2025 05:19
5a7da1f
to
727bb0e
Compare
/azp run |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
abdosi
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2025
thanks @stephenxs |
keboliu
approved these changes
Jan 23, 2025
…ized bytes Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <[email protected]>
stephenxs
force-pushed
the
fix-uninitialized-ipv4-bytes
branch
from
January 23, 2025 07:08
3b84c79
to
5ffa1f3
Compare
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What I did
Avoid removing a VRF routing table when there are pending creation entries in gRouteBulker
Why I did it
Fix issue: out of range exception can be thrown in
addRoutePost
due to non exist VRFHow I verified it
Unit (mock) test
Details if related
Originally, it cleaned up a VRF routing table whenever a prefix of the VRF was removed if
The motivation is to remove a VRF routing table if there is no routing entry in the VRF and no routing entry pending creation for that VRF. However, condition 2 does not guarantee that.
The ideal way of the 2nd condition is to check pending creation entries of a certain VRF, which we can not do.
So, we are using strict conditions here as the following: