feat(evpn-bridge): netlink watcher Module #385

atulpatel261194 · 2024-05-20T07:00:46Z

No description provided.

pkg/netlink/eventbus/eventbus.go

artek-koltun · 2024-05-20T12:34:30Z

pkg/netlink/eventbus/eventbus.go

+
+// Unsubscribe the subscriber, which delete the subscriber(all resources will be washed out)
+func (s *Subscriber) Unsubscribe() {
+	close(s.Ch)


If you write to a closed channel, your program will panic, and it is possible since someone can still be writing on the line 56 to a chan.
Usually it is a responsibility of the send side to close the chan.

chan will be closed only when we deinitialize from vendor module. there are some missing pieces in unsubscriber function . will be added in vendor module PR

hmmm... it might work with mutexes, but can we do better? Could WaitGroup help here?

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

artek-koltun · 2024-05-20T14:29:01Z

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

+}
+
+// oldgenmap old map
+var oldgenmap = make(map[interface{}]interface{})


we have many global vars scattered here and there in this file. Could we group them within a struct, maybe even multiple structs, separated by their purpose? It is sometimes hard to follow what function can change. With usage of global vars and functions, they can change any of them. Functions could operate not on global vars, but on members of a specific struct instance

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

artek-koltun

some more notes

docker-compose.yml

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

artek-koltun · 2024-06-14T14:05:17Z

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

+					if strings.Contains(event[1], "route") || strings.HasPrefix(event[1], "nexthop") {
+						var rv *RouteStruct
+						var nv *NexthopStruct
+						if strings.Contains(event[1], "route") {


how do you know that you have 2 elements in event array?

not done. I see

if rv.Vrf.Status.VrfOperStatus == infradb.VrfOperStatusToBeDeleted { notifyAddDel(rv, event.Operation[2])

What does index 2 mean here? Why was it 1? Would it make sense to create a dedicated struct where we ahve 3 members and their name clearly explain what those events mean?

each event will have 3 operations add, update and delete, accordingly we are filling operations for each event type, so that's where we have length 3 and index 2 for delete, which already defined as constants

For me, it is just a magic number. You might have context how indexing in this array correspond to operations, but I do not have such a context and people who come and try to understand this code, does not have this context either.
Why we cannot use?

notifyAddDel(rv, event.operations.to_delete)

Plus

The code chunk at the moment look like

if event.EventType == ROUTE || event.EventType == NEXTHOP { var rv *RouteStruct var nv *NexthopStruct if event.EventType == ROUTE { rv, ok = v1.(*RouteStruct) if !ok { log.Printf("Netlink: Type mismatch") continue } if rv.Vrf.Status.VrfOperStatus == infradb.VrfOperStatusToBeDeleted { notifyAddDel(rv, event.Operation[2]) delete(new_db, k1) delete(old_db, k1) continue } } else if event.EventType == NEXTHOP { nv, ok = v1.(*NexthopStruct) if !ok { log.Printf("Netlink: Type mismatch") continue } if nv.Vrf.Status.VrfOperStatus == infradb.VrfOperStatusToBeDeleted { notifyAddDel(nv, event.Operation[2]) delete(new_db, k1) delete(old_db, k1) continue } }

Don't you have a feeling that the code in first if is very similar in the code in the second if?
Can we have an interface which would return the status, type assert to that interface once, get the status and do your actions without these duplications? Type Assert v1 to one type or another, get status and work with that? Any other means?

This

switch event.EventType { case ROUTE: status, ok = v1.(VrfStatusGetter) case NEXTHOP: status, ok = v1.(VrfStatusGetter) default: }

to

status, ok := v1.(VrfStatusGetter)

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

artek-koltun · 2024-07-01T14:34:13Z

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

+	case *NexthopStruct:
+		return t.deepEqual(v2.(*NexthopStruct), true)
+	}
+	return true


so if we have v1 and v2 of different types,t hen we return true
looks suspicious

but what if v1 and v2 of the same type but not RouteStruct or NexthopStruct. It is still true

Done, we now check for 4 possible structs

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

artek-koltun · 2024-07-03T06:37:57Z

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

+					if strings.Contains(event[1], "route") || strings.HasPrefix(event[1], "nexthop") {
+						var rv *RouteStruct
+						var nv *NexthopStruct
+						if strings.Contains(event[1], "route") {


For me, it is just a magic number. You might have context how indexing in this array correspond to operations, but I do not have such a context and people who come and try to understand this code, does not have this context either.
Why we cannot use?

notifyAddDel(rv, event.operations.to_delete)

Plus

The code chunk at the moment look like

if event.EventType == ROUTE || event.EventType == NEXTHOP { var rv *RouteStruct var nv *NexthopStruct if event.EventType == ROUTE { rv, ok = v1.(*RouteStruct) if !ok { log.Printf("Netlink: Type mismatch") continue } if rv.Vrf.Status.VrfOperStatus == infradb.VrfOperStatusToBeDeleted { notifyAddDel(rv, event.Operation[2]) delete(new_db, k1) delete(old_db, k1) continue } } else if event.EventType == NEXTHOP { nv, ok = v1.(*NexthopStruct) if !ok { log.Printf("Netlink: Type mismatch") continue } if nv.Vrf.Status.VrfOperStatus == infradb.VrfOperStatusToBeDeleted { notifyAddDel(nv, event.Operation[2]) delete(new_db, k1) delete(old_db, k1) continue } }

Don't you have a feeling that the code in first if is very similar in the code in the second if?
Can we have an interface which would return the status, type assert to that interface once, get the status and do your actions without these duplications? Type Assert v1 to one type or another, get status and work with that? Any other means?

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

docker-compose.yml

mardim91 · 2024-07-04T12:56:11Z

Hello @artek-koltun

I have created a dedicated PR for the docker-compose fix: #390

Co-authored-by: Vemula Venkatesh <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Saikumar Banoth <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Jambekar Vishakha <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Dimitrios Markou <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: atulpatel261194 <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

pkg/netlink/annotatedb.go

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go

artek-koltun · 2024-07-12T06:56:14Z

pkg/netlink/notify.go

+	case *L2NexthopStruct:
+		return t.deepEqual(v2.(*L2NexthopStruct), true)
+	default:
+		return true


Are you sure that you want to return true, if v1 is none of the listed types?

yes, we deal with only the 4 structures defined.

and if you add a new type, it will be always true if by mistake this code is not updated?

when a new type is declared, one need to implement the difference check function for it, best thing is we can log in default

when a new type is declared, one need to implement the difference check function for it, best thing is we can log in default

best we can do here is to log an error and report that they are not equal if an unknown types are coming

true is still returned

yes, we log and return true because don't want to handle such cases,
In case the values are equal we return true to deepcheck and we don't process it simply delete it,
same when we get unknown structs we log and return true and delete them

pkg/netlink/notify.go

pkg/netlink/filter.go

pkg/netlink/netlinkstate.go

artek-koltun · 2024-07-12T08:23:22Z

pkg/netlink/netlinkstate.go

+			fdbentry.bp, _ = infradb.GetBP(bp)
+		}
+	}
+	Dev := fdbIP.Ifname


why some vars are capitilized, some not? https://google.github.io/styleguide/go/decisions.html

still see some like CPs

Please check other places

pkg/netlink/netlinkstate.go

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

pkg/netlink/common.go

pkg/netlink/annotatedb.go

artek-koltun

#385 (comment)

pkg/netlink/fdb.go

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by: atulpatel261194 <[email protected]>

artek-koltun

Despite the current quality disadvantages, we agreed to merge the code as is due to the time constraints. According to the agreement, the tech debt will be re-designed and addressed by the team with the highest priority.

atulpatel261194 requested a review from a team as a code owner May 20, 2024 07:00

atulpatel261194 changed the title ~~feat(evpn-bridge): netlink watcherModule~~ feat(evpn-bridge): netlink watcher Module May 20, 2024

atulpatel261194 force-pushed the drop1.0netlinkwatcher branch from 824b41e to edaa268 Compare May 20, 2024 07:06

artek-koltun reviewed May 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

atulpatel261194 force-pushed the drop1.0netlinkwatcher branch 6 times, most recently from 0e3a2c1 to bcb2125 Compare May 27, 2024 10:37

artek-koltun reviewed May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

artek-koltun reviewed May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go Show resolved Hide resolved

artek-koltun reviewed May 28, 2024

View reviewed changes

atulpatel261194 force-pushed the drop1.0netlinkwatcher branch 2 times, most recently from 6a88d12 to b23eb4c Compare May 29, 2024 05:34

atulpatel261194 force-pushed the drop1.0netlinkwatcher branch 2 times, most recently from 364a03a to 47b297f Compare June 11, 2024 08:27

atulpatel261194 mentioned this pull request Jun 13, 2024

feat(evpn): complete fastpath implementation of new arch #384

Closed

artek-koltun reviewed Jun 14, 2024

View reviewed changes

artek-koltun reviewed Jul 1, 2024

View reviewed changes

artek-koltun reviewed Jul 3, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkg/netlink/netlink_watcher.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

docker-compose.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

sandersms mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2024

fix(evpn-bridge): fix incorrect subnet in CI #390

Merged

atulpatel261194 and others added 6 commits July 9, 2024 08:39

fix(netlink): complete working netlink

064406e

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

fix(evpn): fix graceful shutdown, make tracer optional

a55098c

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

fix(evpn): minor syntax improvements in netlink

ce4fa55

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

fix(evpn): netlink PR comments

424ba54

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

fix(evpn): netlink fixes

6aeeb02

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

fix(evpn): split netlink files

7ee6677

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

Inbanoth force-pushed the drop1.0netlinkwatcher branch from 6c99072 to 7ee6677 Compare July 9, 2024 07:57

artek-koltun reviewed Jul 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

fix(evpn): netlink split changes

1bcbbe5

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

artek-koltun reviewed Jul 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkg/netlink/common.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/netlink/annotatedb.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

artek-koltun reviewed Jul 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkg/netlink/fdb.go Show resolved Hide resolved

Inbanoth and others added 4 commits July 22, 2024 12:47

fix(evpn): update netlink split changes

3e51b4f

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

fix(evpn): netlink split changes

306bf65

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

fix(evpn): netlink split changes

58512e1

Signed-off-by: Saikumar, Banoth <[email protected]>

fix(evpn): netlink reviews

bb3e67f

Signed-off-by: atulpatel261194 <[email protected]>

atulpatel261194 force-pushed the drop1.0netlinkwatcher branch 2 times, most recently from fbac3d6 to bb3e67f Compare August 26, 2024 09:54

artek-koltun approved these changes Aug 26, 2024

View reviewed changes

artek-koltun merged commit cbc1fba into opiproject:main Aug 26, 2024
39 checks passed

atulpatel261194 mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2024

Drop1.0: Complete implementation for fastpath + remove vendor leftovers #397

Merged

feat(evpn-bridge): netlink watcher Module #385

feat(evpn-bridge): netlink watcher Module #385

Conversation

atulpatel261194 commented May 20, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

artek-koltun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

artek-koltun Jul 3, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

artek-koltun Jul 3, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mardim91 commented Jul 4, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

artek-koltun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

artek-koltun left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

artek-koltun Jul 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading

artek-koltun Jul 3, 2024 •

edited

Loading