Bug 1422629 – Flower support in tc

Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.

Bug 1422629 - Flower support in tc

Summary:	Flower support in tc

Status:	CLOSED ERRATA

Aliases:	None

Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification:	Red Hat
Component:	iproute (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	7.4
Hardware:	Unspecified Unspecified

Priority	medium Severity medium
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Jonathan Toppins
QA Contact:	Li Shuang
Docs Contact:	Ioanna Gkioka

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends On:	1393375
Blocks:	1353018
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2017-02-15 12:47 EST by Phil Sutter
Modified:	2018-02-23 09:56 EST (History)
CC List:	6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:	iproute-3.10.0-78.el7
Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:	The tc utility now supports flower The tc utility has been enhanced to use the kernel flower traffic control classifier. With this update, a user can add, modify, or delete flower classifier rules from an interface.
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-08-01 17:32:13 EDT
Type:	Bug
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

External Trackers
Tracker	ID	Priority	Status	Summary	Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata	RHBA-2017:2171	normal	SHIPPED_LIVE	iproute bug fix and enhancement update	2017-08-01 14:40:13 EDT

Groups: None (edit)

Description Phil Sutter 2017-02-15 12:47:15 EST

In order to make use of and properly test flower scheduler backport in RHEL7 kernel, support for it in 'tc' utility should be backported as well.

Comment 1 Phil Sutter 2017-02-15 12:51:53 EST

Ah, my bad: Flower is not a scheduler, but a classifier.

Comment 3 Ondrej Moriš 2017-03-14 10:41:45 EDT

Jonathan, would you help us identifying the most important test cases? Is there anything specific we should focus on during the testing?

Comment 5 Jonathan Toppins 2017-03-22 17:45:34 EDT

(In reply to Ondrej Moriš from comment #3)
> Jonathan, would you help us identifying the most important test cases? Is
> there anything specific we should focus on during the testing?

Yes I would be happy to review any test plans so that I can make useful suggestions based on what you are already covering.

I am currently reviewing the netsched test plan[1].

In general I would focus on basic functionality, for example given 3 tcp streams can flower filter one of those streams and drop/mark it.

I would then take this basic test and then attempt to run the same test while trying to have hardware offload the filtering, which some devices can do.

These are functional tests however and maybe I am missing the level and type of testing your team needs to do.

[1] https://wiki.test.redhat.com/Kernel/Testplans/RHEL74Netsched

Comment 6 Li Shuang 2017-05-16 22:09:16 EDT

Hi Jonathan,

I have also written some tests which focus on the basic functionality. In these cases I add some tc rules with most of tc-flower options, send traffic, and then check if the traffic could be matched and dropped successfully.

Now it shows that the results of my tests are all passed, so do you think I can set this bz to Verified? 

Thanks, Shuang

Comment 11 errata-xmlrpc 2017-08-01 17:32:13 EDT

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017:2171

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.