On Sunday 31 October 2010 01:16:02 Simon Horman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 05:55:32PM +0300, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > [ snip ] > > > > - What is the right thing to do in ip_vs_conn_fill_param_sync > > when ip_vs_pe_get() does not find PE? May be to drop > > connection? May be in ip_vs_process_message() we should > > use one pointer for end of message (it was 'p' before now), > > so that we can skip connections, for example, when some > > mandatory parameter as PE is not supported. We should not > > drop the whole sync message. When message is invalid it > > should be dropped but lack of support should not hurt > > other connections. In the case for PE may be > > ip_vs_conn_fill_param_sync() should return 1 if > > PE is unknown (ip_vs_pe_get). Then caller will continue > > with next connection if result > 0 or will drop message > > if result < 0 as in current patch. May be the pe_name > > presence should be the first check in > > ip_vs_conn_fill_param_sync. > > Yes, I agree with this. I will fix that. > > > Also note that p->pe is > > pointer without reference while called in ip_vs_sched_persist. > > In our case with ip_vs_conn_fill_param_sync we should > > put this reference after calling ip_vs_proc_conn(). > > May be ip_vs_find_dest should check that p->pe matches > > svc->pe. ip_vs_try_bind_dest should provide p->pe too > > for this check. But we must somehow ignore new conns > > with PE if they don't have cp->dest (service) because > > it is risky to attach PE that is not held by svc. > > It is bad that the check for p->pe is before > > ip_vs_find_dest. > > I have a patch, "IPVS: Add persistence engine to connection entry" > that attaches the pe to the connection rather than the dest. > In this case, if pe is NULL, then the connection doesn't use > pe, which is fine. If its non-NULL, its there so there is no > problem in that case either. > > I think this resolves the issue that you raise. As mention before I will include that patch. [ snip ] > > > > - Note that pe_data is leaked when ip_vs_proc_conn() fails > > to create connection. May be PE info for non-templates > > should be ignored? > > Yes I think it should be ignored in that case. OK > > > And we need a way to know if > > ip_vs_proc_conn called ip_vs_conn_new at all and that > > it succeeded so that we can safely free pe_data. > > Perhaps ip_vs_proc_conn() could just free pe_data if > it is present but ip_vs_conn_new() is not called. > Hmmm, I missed that one.... > > > > Simon should tell what happens if some PE updates > > ct->pe_data, may be we should replace it too for the > > case when ip_vs_proc_conn works with existing template? > > At this stage there is no facility for updating PE data. > But I think replacing it should be fine, so long as > the appropriate locking is in place. OK > > > v2 PATCH 4/4 > > May be we should add configuration option if sync is enabled > > to default to version 0 because how we solve the problem if > > backup can not be upgraded? > > I think that defaulting to v1 and having an option > to move back to v0 would make more sense. Initially > I would expect people to need to use v0 for the reason > that you describe. But once the backup has been upgraded then, > bugs not withstanding, there shouldn't be a reason not to use v1 > moving forward. OK, but then I need to add sending of version_0 [ snip ] I will start cooking a v3 soon -- Regards Hans Schillstrom <hans.schillstrom@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
