mir/kea
2
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.isc.org/isc-projects/kea synced 2025-08-31 14:05:33 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

[#1087] Return analyzed messages count in HA

Browse Source 
The new counter is returned via a public method of the communication state.
This commit is contained in:
Marcin Siodelski
2020-05-15 10:24:07 +02:00
parent 886ca05e80
commit cdd7c401ab
3 changed files with 39 additions and 2 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

13
src/hooks/dhcp/high_availability/communication_state.cc
View File

@@ -50,7 +50,8 @@ CommunicationState::CommunicationState(const IOServicePtr& io_service,
poke_time_(boost::posix_time::microsec_clock::universal_time()),
heartbeat_impl_(0), partner_state_(-1), partner_scopes_(),
clock_skew_(0, 0, 0, 0), last_clock_skew_warn_(),
my_time_at_skew_(), partner_time_at_skew_() {
my_time_at_skew_(), partner_time_at_skew_(),
analyzed_messages_count_(0) {
}
CommunicationState::~CommunicationState() {
@@ -158,6 +159,7 @@ CommunicationState::poke() {
// partner, we need to clear any gathered information because the connection
// seems to be (re)established.
clearUnackedClients();
analyzed_messages_count_ = 0;
if (timer_) {
// Check the duration since last poke. If it is less than a second, we don't
@@ -188,6 +190,11 @@ CommunicationState::isCommunicationInterrupted() const {
return (getDurationInMillisecs() > config_->getMaxResponseDelay());
}
size_t
CommunicationState::getAnalyzedMessagesCount() const {
return (analyzed_messages_count_);
}
bool
CommunicationState::clockSkewShouldWarn() {
// First check if the clock skew is beyond the threshold.
@@ -275,6 +282,8 @@ CommunicationState4::analyzeMessage(const boost::shared_ptr<dhcp::Pkt>& message)
isc_throw(BadValue, "DHCP message to be analyzed is not a DHCPv4 message");
}
++analyzed_messages_count_;
// Check value of the "secs" field by comparing it with the configured
// threshold.
uint16_t secs = msg->getSecs();
@@ -349,6 +358,8 @@ CommunicationState6::analyzeMessage(const boost::shared_ptr<dhcp::Pkt>& message)
isc_throw(BadValue, "DHCP message to be analyzed is not a DHCPv6 message");
}
++analyzed_messages_count_;
// Check the value of the "elapsed time" option. If it is below the threshold
// there is nothing to do. The "elapsed time" option holds the time in
// 1/100 of second, hence we have to multiply by 10 to get a value in milliseconds.

10
src/hooks/dhcp/high_availability/communication_state.h
View File

@@ -198,6 +198,13 @@ public:
/// this method.
virtual void analyzeMessage(const boost::shared_ptr<dhcp::Pkt>& message) = 0;
/// @brief Returns the number of analyzed messages while being in the
/// communications interrupted state.
///
/// @return Number of analyzed messages. It includes retransmissions by
/// the same clients.
size_t getAnalyzedMessagesCount() const;
/// @brief Checks if the partner failure has been detected based
/// on the DHCP traffic analysis.
///
@@ -351,6 +358,9 @@ protected:
/// @brief Partner reported time when skew was calculated.
boost::posix_time::ptime partner_time_at_skew_;
/// @brief Total number of analyzed messages to be responded by partner.
size_t analyzed_messages_count_;
};
/// @brief Type of the pointer to the @c CommunicationState object.

18
src/hooks/dhcp/high_availability/tests/communication_state_unittest.cc
View File

@@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV4) {
// Initially, there should be no unacked clients recorded.
ASSERT_FALSE(state_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(0, state_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(0, state_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// The maximum number of unacked clients is 10. Let's provide 10
// DHCPDISCOVER messages with the "secs" value of 15 which exceeds
@@ -209,6 +210,7 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV4) {
<< static_cast<int>(i);
}
EXPECT_EQ(10, state_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(10, state_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// Let's provide similar set of requests but this time the "secs" field is
// below the threshold. They should not be counted as failures. Also,
@@ -221,6 +223,7 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV4) {
<< static_cast<int>(i);
}
EXPECT_EQ(10, state_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(20, state_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// Let's create a message from a new (not recorded yet) client with the
// "secs" field value below the threshold. It should not be recorded.
@@ -229,18 +232,21 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV4) {
// Still no failure.
ASSERT_FALSE(state_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(10, state_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(21, state_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// Let's repeat one of the requests which already have been recorded as
// unacked but with a greater value of "secs" field. This should not
// be counted because only new clients count.
ASSERT_NO_THROW(state_.analyzeMessage(createMessage4(DHCPDISCOVER, 3, 3, 20)));
ASSERT_FALSE(state_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(22, state_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// This time let's simulate a client with a MAC address already recorded but
// with a client identifier. This should be counted as a new unacked request.
ASSERT_NO_THROW(state_.analyzeMessage(createMessage4(DHCPDISCOVER, 7, 7, 15)));
ASSERT_TRUE(state_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(11, state_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(23, state_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// Poking should cause all counters to reset as it is an indication that the
// control connection has been re-established.
@@ -249,6 +255,7 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV4) {
// We're back to no failure state.
EXPECT_FALSE(state_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(0, state_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(0, state_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// Send 11 DHCPDISCOVER messages with the "secs" field bytes swapped. Swapping
// bytes was reported for some misbehaving Windows clients. The server should
@@ -264,6 +271,7 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV4) {
<< " when testing swapped secs field bytes";
}
EXPECT_EQ(0, state_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(11, state_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// Repeat the same test, but this time either the first byte exceeds the
// secs threshold or the second byte is non-zero. All should be counted
@@ -283,6 +291,7 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV4) {
0x30)));
EXPECT_TRUE(state_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(11, state_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(22, state_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
}
// This test verifies that it is possible to disable analysis of the DHCPv4
@@ -297,7 +306,8 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, failureDetectionDisabled4) {
TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV6) {
// Initially, there should be no unacked clients recorded.
ASSERT_FALSE(state6_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(0, state_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(0, state6_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(0, state6_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// The maximum number of unacked clients is 10. Let's provide 10
// Solicit messages with the "elapsed time" value of 1500 which exceeds
@@ -314,6 +324,7 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV6) {
<< static_cast<int>(i);
}
EXPECT_EQ(10, state6_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(10, state6_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// Let's provide similar set of requests but this time the "elapsed time" is
// below the threshold. They should not be counted as failures. Also,
@@ -326,6 +337,7 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV6) {
<< static_cast<int>(i);
}
EXPECT_EQ(10, state6_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(20, state6_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// Let's create a message from a new (not recorded yet) client with the
// "elapsed time" value below the threshold. It should not be recorded.
@@ -334,6 +346,7 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV6) {
// Still no failure.
ASSERT_FALSE(state6_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(10, state6_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(21, state6_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// Let's repeat one of the requests which already have been recorded as
// unacked but with a greater value of "elapsed time". This should not
@@ -341,11 +354,13 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV6) {
ASSERT_NO_THROW(state6_.analyzeMessage(createMessage6(DHCPV6_SOLICIT, 3, 2000)));
ASSERT_FALSE(state6_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(10, state6_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(22, state6_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// New unacked client should cause failure to the detected.
ASSERT_NO_THROW(state6_.analyzeMessage(createMessage6(DHCPV6_SOLICIT, 11, 1500)));
ASSERT_TRUE(state6_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(11, state6_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(23, state6_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
// Poking should cause all counters to reset as it is an indication that the
// control connection has been re-established.
@@ -354,6 +369,7 @@ TEST_F(CommunicationStateTest, detectFailureV6) {
// We're back to no failure state.
EXPECT_FALSE(state6_.failureDetected());
EXPECT_EQ(0, state6_.getUnackedClientsCount());
EXPECT_EQ(0, state6_.getAnalyzedMessagesCount());
}
// This test verifies that it is possible to disable analysis of the DHCPv6