-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 558
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Avoid removing a VRF routing table when there are pending creation entries in gRouteBulker #3477
Avoid removing a VRF routing table when there are pending creation entries in gRouteBulker #3477
Conversation
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
5a7da1f
to
727bb0e
Compare
/azp run |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
thanks @stephenxs |
3b84c79
to
5ffa1f3
Compare
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Didn't find a failure but vstest returned non zero |
/azpw run |
/AzurePipelines run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
…ized bytes Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <stephens@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Sun <stephens@nvidia.com>
76dbbfe
to
601e675
Compare
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
@abdosi , please check the cherry-pick labels. Looks like there is conflict and may have to raise separate PR |
Cherry-pick PR to 202405: #3493 |
Cherry-pick to 202405 since PR #3477 was in 202405 |
Hi @abdosi is there a separated PR for 202411 as it has conflict and can not be cherry-picked? |
@prsunny @abdosi @keboliu
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202411: #3526 |
What I did
Avoid removing a VRF routing table when there are pending creation entries in gRouteBulker
Why I did it
Fix issue: out of range exception can be thrown in
addRoutePost
due to non exist VRFHow I verified it
Unit (mock) test
Details if related
Originally, it cleaned up a VRF routing table whenever a prefix of the VRF was removed if
The motivation is to remove a VRF routing table if there is no routing entry in the VRF and no routing entry pending creation for that VRF. However, condition 2 does not guarantee that.
The ideal way of the 2nd condition is to check pending creation entries of a certain VRF, which we can not do.
So, we are using strict conditions here as the following: