On 10/24/2015 06:32 AM, Brian Rak wrote:
On 10/23/2015 6:32 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
On 10/23/2015 02:34 PM, Brian Rak wrote:
I've got a weird situation here. I have a route that the kernel knows
about, but won't display via the general RTM_GETROUTE call, but will
display if I query for that particular route:
# ip -4 route show | grep 108.61.171.x
The use of 'x' here is going to make things confusing. I assume you
are using a value of 0 here, or is this a route to a specific IP
address that you have. If not you should be using a 0 for all bits
that would be outside of your subnet mask.
This is a route to a particular IP address:
# ip route show | grep 108.61.171.247
# ip route get 108.61.171.247
108.61.171.247 dev SRVID630287
cache
Okay, makes sense.
# ip route get 108.61.171.x
108.61.171.x dev MYIF
cache
The 'x' being the actual value here should work as this will perform a
lookup as I recall.
# cat /proc/net/route | grep 108.61.171.x
The IPs are in network order and as just hex so this won't work.
# cat /proc/net/route | grep -i 6c3dac
The byte ordering you are using is backwards here from what I can
tell. So it should be ac3d6c you are checking for, not the other way
around. So for example if I was using 192.168.1.x I would want to
look for 01A8C0.
Oops. This also doesn't show the route, which it should:
# cat /proc/net/route | grep SRVID630287
#
So does this device have no routes on it then? I'm just wanting to
confirm the behaviour you are seeing since my concern was mostly about a
bug I had introduced where we were losing one route if a dump was broken
up over multiple pages. It seems like that isn't the case.
# ip route add 108.61.171.x dev MYIF
RTNETLINK answers: File exists
# ip route del 108.61.171.x <---- it deletes successfully once
# ip route del 108.61.171.x
RTNETLINK answers: No such process
So at least we have the routes in the FIB. It looks like this just
might be a display issue.
This is on a machine running 4.1.3, but I have seen it on earlier
versions in the past.
I don't have great reproduction steps here, I've seen this 4-5 times in
the past few months (on different hardware). So far, I haven't really
found any way of fixing it (deleting and readding the route has no
effect). I thought at first this might be related to
e55ffaf457bcc8ec4e9d9f56f955971f834d65b3, but as far as I can tell that
only relates to /proc/net/route.
Any suggestions on further troubleshooting here? I'm all out of ideas
(and since I can't easily reproduce it yet, I can't reboot to a newer
kernel to see if it goes away)
How many routes do you have on your system? I'm just wondering if it
might be possible that the route could be at a boundary for the dump
call and if it might be possibly losing the data there. Although I
would expect
ip -4 route show | wc -l shows 67
Also have you tried double checking to verify that grep isn't somehow
missing the line?
Yes, so we noticed this issue because BIRD stopped picking up the
route. BIRD's trying to grab these via netlink:
https://github.com/BIRD/bird/blob/master/sysdep/linux/netlink.c#L1045 ,
so I don't believe this is just an issue with grep missing the route. I
also wrote a simple python script with pyroute2, which also missed the
route.
I was doing some testing to see if I could add routes for nearby IPs,
and ended up somehow correcting the issue:
# ip route show | grep SRVID630287
# ip route add 108.61.171.200/32 dev SRVID630287
# ip route show | grep SRVID630287
108.61.171.200 dev SRVID630287 scope link
108.61.171.247 dev SRVID630287 scope link
# ip route del 108.61.171.200/32 dev SRVID630287
# ip route show | grep SRVID630287
108.61.171.247 dev SRVID630287 scope link
Does that make any sense?
It might if there is a hole in what is being displayed. One thing you
might try doing is to generate two dumps, one with your additional route
and one without and then try doing a diff between the two. Then you
might look at adding a few more routes to see if that forces the missing
route to appear but perhaps causes another route to disappear from the dump.
With that test we should be able to identify the behaviour since it
sounds like an issue where the route is there in memory, but for
whatever reason it isn't being displayed. If we can identify a hole
that these routes are falling into we might be able to determine what is
causing the issue.
- Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
