[pve-devel] [PATCH frr] frr: fix bit flag collision in patch

[Thomas Lamprecht]

On 13/03/2025 13:49, Gabriel Goller wrote:
> Resolve conflict between F_ISIS_UNIT_TEST and ISIS_OPT_DUMMY_AS_LOOPBACK
> which were both using the same bit value (0x01). This collision caused
> unit test mode to be unintentionally enabled when DUMMY_AS_LOOPBACK was set.
> 

This is also wrong at upstream then though?

https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/isisd/isisd.h#L79-L81

Is upstream notified of this? maybe send a PR to them if testing holds
up.

missing a fixes trailer, like:

Fixes: ecf591e ("frr: add the dummy_as_loopback patch series, enable it by default")

> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Goller <g.goller at proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> * I'm not sure about the debian version number, let me know if this is
>   wrong.

For starters please always do the bump in a separate patch, it's rather
unrelated to the fix. I'm also fine with handling bumps myself, as should be
all release team members. FWIW, I appreciate getting changes added there,
and thought about even starting to requesting that, but they really need
to target humans and should keep the "UNRELEASED" as value for the release,
i.e. what the `dch -i` template uses by default.

w.r.t. versioning I'd have bumped the pve1 part to pve2.

> * I edited the patch introducing this bug, if it's better to add a new
>   patch, I'll be happy to change it.

This is fine, layered patches of patches are seldomly a good option.

> * We are still testing the newest version so it's not yet ready for
>   testing/no-subscription.

So what can I expect here, should it still be packaged and uploaded to
internal staging for more broad QA?

> 
>  debian/changelog                                    |  6 ++++++
>  ...d-option-to-treat-dummy-interfaces-as-loop.patch | 13 ++++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
> index 6e68311132b1..7e2ffd7964a9 100644
> --- a/debian/changelog
> +++ b/debian/changelog
> @@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
> +frr (10.2.1-2+pve1) bookworm; urgency=medium
> +
> +  * fix fabricd dummy_as_loopback flag collision

collision with what? these entries should be telling for end users (not devs).

> +
> + -- Gabriel Goller <g.goller at proxmox.com>  Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:33:46 +0100
> +
>  frr (10.2.1-1+pve1) bookworm; urgency=medium
>  
>    * update upstream source to 10.2.1
> diff --git a/debian/patches/pve/0005-fabricd-add-option-to-treat-dummy-interfaces-as-loop.patch b/debian/patches/pve/0005-fabricd-add-option-to-treat-dummy-interfaces-as-loop.patch
> index 331beed378ec..184a093334c9 100644
> --- a/debian/patches/pve/0005-fabricd-add-option-to-treat-dummy-interfaces-as-loop.patch
> +++ b/debian/patches/pve/0005-fabricd-add-option-to-treat-dummy-interfaces-as-loop.patch
> @@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ Signed-off-by: Gabriel Goller <g.goller at proxmox.com>
>   isisd/isis_circuit.c         |  9 +++++----
>   isisd/isis_main.c            | 16 +++++++++++++---
>   isisd/isisd.c                | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> - isisd/isisd.h                |  4 ++++
> - 6 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> + isisd/isisd.h                |  6 +++++-
> + 6 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>  
>  Index: b/doc/manpages/frr-fabricd.rst
>  ===================================================================
> @@ -181,15 +181,18 @@ Index: b/isisd/isisd.h
>  ===================================================================
>  --- a/isisd/isisd.h	2025-03-07 11:09:47.700424235 +0100
>  +++ b/isisd/isisd.h	2025-03-07 11:09:47.698424233 +0100
> -@@ -74,7 +74,9 @@
> +@@ -74,9 +74,11 @@
>   	struct list *isis;
>   	/* ISIS thread master. */
>   	struct event_loop *master;
>  +	/* Various global options */
>   	uint8_t options;
> -+#define ISIS_OPT_DUMMY_AS_LOOPBACK (1 << 0)
> ++#define F_ISIS_UNIT_TEST (1 << 0)
> ++#define ISIS_OPT_DUMMY_AS_LOOPBACK (1 << 1)

somewhat pre-existing, but yuck, who places defines in the middle of struct
definitions?!¿

btw. such bit flag definition are one of the few cases where aligning the
values makes sense and the header you're modifying here already uses that
style:

https://github.com/FRRouting/frr/blob/master/isisd/isisd.h#L374-L389

>   };
> - #define F_ISIS_UNIT_TEST 0x01
> +-#define F_ISIS_UNIT_TEST 0x01
> + 
> + #define ISIS_DEFAULT_MAX_AREA_ADDRESSES 3
>   
>  @@ -269,6 +271,8 @@
>   void isis_terminate(void);