Commit 1dab3d5a authored by Jon Paul Maloy's avatar Jon Paul Maloy Committed by David S. Miller

tipc: change reception of tunnelled duplicate packets

When a second link to a destination comes up, some sender sockets will
steer their subsequent traffic through the new link. In order to
guarantee preserved packet order and cardinality for those sockets, we
tunnel a duplicate of the old link's send queue through the new link
before we open it for regular traffic. The last arriving packet copy,
on whichever link, will be dropped at the receiving end based on the
original sequence number, to ensure that only one copy is delivered to
the end receiver.

In this commit, we change the algorithm for receiving DUPLICATE_MSG
packets, at the same time delegating it to a new subfunction,
tipc_link_dup_rcv(). Instead of returning an extracted inner packet to
the packet reception loop in tipc_rcv(), we just add it to the receiving
(new) link's deferred packet queue. The packet will then be processed by
that link when it receives its first non-tunneled packet, i.e., at
latest when the changeover procedure is finished.

Because tipc_link_tunnel_rcv()/tipc_link_dup_rcv() now is consuming all
packets of type DUPLICATE_MSG, the calling tipc_rcv() function can omit
testing for this. This in turn means that the current conditional jump
to the label 'protocol_check' becomes redundant, and we can remove that
label.
Signed-off-by: default avatarJon Maloy <jon.maloy@ericsson.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarYing Xue <ying.xue@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
parent c61dd61d
......@@ -1437,7 +1437,6 @@ void tipc_rcv(struct sk_buff *head, struct tipc_bearer *b_ptr)
u32 seq_no;
u32 ackd;
u32 released = 0;
int type;
head = head->next;
buf->next = NULL;
......@@ -1525,7 +1524,6 @@ void tipc_rcv(struct sk_buff *head, struct tipc_bearer *b_ptr)
}
/* Now (finally!) process the incoming message */
protocol_check:
if (unlikely(!link_working_working(l_ptr))) {
if (msg_user(msg) == LINK_PROTOCOL) {
link_recv_proto_msg(l_ptr, buf);
......@@ -1599,15 +1597,11 @@ void tipc_rcv(struct sk_buff *head, struct tipc_bearer *b_ptr)
tipc_node_unlock(n_ptr);
continue;
case CHANGEOVER_PROTOCOL:
type = msg_type(msg);
if (tipc_link_tunnel_rcv(&l_ptr, &buf)) {
msg = buf_msg(buf);
seq_no = msg_seqno(msg);
if (type == ORIGINAL_MSG)
goto deliver;
goto protocol_check;
}
break;
if (!tipc_link_tunnel_rcv(&l_ptr, &buf))
break;
msg = buf_msg(buf);
seq_no = msg_seqno(msg);
goto deliver;
default:
kfree_skb(buf);
buf = NULL;
......@@ -2107,7 +2101,30 @@ static struct sk_buff *buf_extract(struct sk_buff *skb, u32 from_pos)
return eb;
}
/* tipc_link_tunnel_rcv(): Receive a tunneled packet, sent
/* tipc_link_dup_rcv(): Receive a tunnelled DUPLICATE_MSG packet.
* Owner node is locked.
*/
static void tipc_link_dup_rcv(struct tipc_link *l_ptr,
struct sk_buff *t_buf)
{
struct sk_buff *buf;
if (!tipc_link_is_up(l_ptr))
return;
buf = buf_extract(t_buf, INT_H_SIZE);
if (buf == NULL) {
pr_warn("%sfailed to extract inner dup pkt\n", link_co_err);
return;
}
/* Add buffer to deferred queue, if applicable: */
link_handle_out_of_seq_msg(l_ptr, buf);
}
/* tipc_link_tunnel_rcv(): Receive a tunnelled packet, sent
* via other link as result of a failover (ORIGINAL_MSG) or
* a new active link (DUPLICATE_MSG). Failover packets are
* returned to the active link for delivery upwards.
......@@ -2126,6 +2143,7 @@ static int tipc_link_tunnel_rcv(struct tipc_link **l_ptr,
if (bearer_id >= MAX_BEARERS)
goto exit;
dest_link = (*l_ptr)->owner->links[bearer_id];
if (!dest_link)
goto exit;
......@@ -2138,15 +2156,8 @@ static int tipc_link_tunnel_rcv(struct tipc_link **l_ptr,
msg = msg_get_wrapped(tunnel_msg);
if (msg_typ == DUPLICATE_MSG) {
if (less(msg_seqno(msg), mod(dest_link->next_in_no)))
goto exit;
*buf = buf_extract(tunnel_buf, INT_H_SIZE);
if (*buf == NULL) {
pr_warn("%sduplicate msg dropped\n", link_co_err);
goto exit;
}
kfree_skb(tunnel_buf);
return 1;
tipc_link_dup_rcv(dest_link, tunnel_buf);
goto exit;
}
/* First original message ?: */
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment