[ovs-dev] [PATCH] datapath: Check for sock argument to v6ops->fragment.

[Jesse Gross]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse at kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse at kernel.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ubuntu 3.13.0-83-generic has backported a patch that adds an
>> >> intermediate
>> >> version of the v6ops->fragment function that doesn't seem to ever been
>> >> part of a released upstream kernel. This version is missing the sock
>> >> argument to the fragment function.
>> >>
>> >> Since we already have a backported version of the function from a newer
>> >> kernel, this simply ignores the version that Ubuntu is now making
>> >> available
>> >> and continues to use the OVS version, similar to what it was doing
>> >> before.
>> >>
>> >> Reported-by: Zoltán Balogh <zoltan.balogh at ericsson.com>
>> >> Reported-by: Aaron Rosen <aaronorosen at gmail.com>
>> >> Reported-by: Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Jesse Gross <jesse at kernel.org>
>> >
>> >
>> > I verified that this patch resolves the issue for me.  Thank you!
>> >
>> > Acked-by: Russell Bryant <russell at ovn.org>
>>
>> Thanks, that was fast! I applied this patch to master and branch-2.5
>>
>> In terms of the OpenStack CI infrastructure, is that sufficient to
>> resolve the issue? i.e. Are all cases where this matters is it using
>> OVS off the branches directly (presumably for OVN) or are there other
>> situations where this will cause problems?
>
>
> Good question.
>
> For OVN, we're using master directly, so this is sufficient.
>
> I know of one other OpenStack CI job that compiles OVS and uses the v2.5.0
> tag.  I just checked a run of that job and for whatever reason, it wasn't
> using the newer ubuntu kernel yet.  If/when it does, it will be easy to
> update it to get this commit on branch-2.5.  I copied a few people to make
> sure they're aware of the issue.

Sounds good - thanks for looking into it.