Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> writes:
> Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 11:39:22PM CEST, m...@mojatatu.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>It appears that the following commit changed the behaviour of scenario where a
>>filter is deleted twice:
>>
>>commit f71e0ca4db187af7c44987e9d21e9042c3046070
>>Author: Jiri Pirko <j...@mellanox.com>
>>Date: Mon Jul 23 09:23:05 2018 +0200
>>
>> net: sched: Avoid implicit chain 0 creation
>>
>>
>>Steps to reproduce :
>>
>>1) create dummy device
>> $ ip link add dev dummy0 type dummy
>>
>>2) create qdisc
>> $ tc qdisc add dev dummy0 ingress
>>
>>3) create simple u32 filter with action attached
>> $ tc filter add dev dummy0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 1 u32 match ip
>> src 10.10.10.1/32 action ok
>>
>>4) list the filter
>> $ tc filter ls dev dummy0 parent ffff:
>>
>>5) delete the filter with the given protocol and priority
>> $ tc filter del dev dummy0 parent ffff: protocol ip prio 1
>>
>>6) repeat step 5, this will return -ENOENT ("Error: Filter with specified
>>priority/protocol not found.")
>>However, before the change at step 6 we would get -EINVAL (Error: Cannot find
>>specified filter chain.)
>>and that makes sense.
>
> Wait, this now returns:
> Error: Cannot find specified filter chain.
> So you want it to return -EINVAL (Error: Cannot find specified filter chain.)
> ?
> How about for other chains?
>
I must've mixed up the return codes and messages while typing the
message.
So _before_ commit f71e0ca4db187af7c44987e9d21e9042c3046070 step 6 would
return -ENOENT with "Error: Filter with specified priority/protocol not
found." and _after_ the commit it returns -EINVAL (Error: Cannot find
specified filter chain.)
ENOENT seems to be more logical to return when there's no more filter to delete.
