bgpd: Improve route-map matching for INET(6) AF

While the current implementation does pay attention to the AF
(inet/inet6) when comparing the IPv4/v6 address against an address-list
/ prefix-list inside a route-map, the AF check is being done rather
late, which leads to CPU cycles being wasted due to unnecessary list
lookups / address matching.

This commit checks the address family of a prefix right inside the
`route_match_ip(v6)_` functions before looking up any address- and/or
prefix-list, which should improve performance.

Signed-off-by: Pascal Mathis <mail@pascalmathis.com>
(cherry picked from commit 09cd98ebeef5e8d0c39a30574307a04bbb59b947)

diff --git a/bgpd/bgp_routemap.c b/bgpd/bgp_routemap.c
index 4cc889286ea031860b95f27ec1f04e1d458acafe..1043f556bf5269f13c91226a2064e5647cf928a2 100644 (file)
--- a/bgpd/bgp_routemap.c
+++ b/bgpd/bgp_routemap.c
@@ -338,9 +338,8 @@ static route_map_result_t route_match_ip_address(void *rule,
                                                 void *object)
 {
        struct access_list *alist;
-       /* struct prefix_ipv4 match; */
 
-       if (type == RMAP_BGP) {
+       if (type == RMAP_BGP && prefix->family == AF_INET) {
                alist = access_list_lookup(AFI_IP, (char *)rule);
                if (alist == NULL)
                        return RMAP_NOMATCH;
@@ -382,7 +381,7 @@ static route_map_result_t route_match_ip_next_hop(void *rule,
        struct bgp_info *bgp_info;
        struct prefix_ipv4 p;
 
-       if (type == RMAP_BGP) {
+       if (type == RMAP_BGP && prefix->family == AF_INET) {
                bgp_info = object;
                p.family = AF_INET;
                p.prefix = bgp_info->attr->nexthop;
@@ -430,7 +429,7 @@ static route_map_result_t route_match_ip_route_source(void *rule,
        struct peer *peer;
        struct prefix_ipv4 p;
 
-       if (type == RMAP_BGP) {
+       if (type == RMAP_BGP && prefix->family == AF_INET) {
                bgp_info = object;
                peer = bgp_info->peer;
 
@@ -478,7 +477,7 @@ route_match_ip_address_prefix_list(void *rule, struct prefix *prefix,
 {
        struct prefix_list *plist;
 
-       if (type == RMAP_BGP) {
+       if (type == RMAP_BGP && prefix->family == AF_INET) {
                plist = prefix_list_lookup(AFI_IP, (char *)rule);
                if (plist == NULL)
                        return RMAP_NOMATCH;
@@ -515,7 +514,7 @@ route_match_ip_next_hop_prefix_list(void *rule, struct prefix *prefix,
        struct bgp_info *bgp_info;
        struct prefix_ipv4 p;
 
-       if (type == RMAP_BGP) {
+       if (type == RMAP_BGP && prefix->family == AF_INET) {
                bgp_info = object;
                p.family = AF_INET;
                p.prefix = bgp_info->attr->nexthop;
@@ -558,7 +557,7 @@ route_match_ip_route_source_prefix_list(void *rule, struct prefix *prefix,
        struct peer *peer;
        struct prefix_ipv4 p;
 
-       if (type == RMAP_BGP) {
+       if (type == RMAP_BGP && prefix->family == AF_INET) {
                bgp_info = object;
                peer = bgp_info->peer;
 
@@ -2239,7 +2238,7 @@ static route_map_result_t route_match_ipv6_address(void *rule,
 {
        struct access_list *alist;
 
-       if (type == RMAP_BGP) {
+       if (type == RMAP_BGP && prefix->family == AF_INET6) {
                alist = access_list_lookup(AFI_IP6, (char *)rule);
                if (alist == NULL)
                        return RMAP_NOMATCH;
@@ -2326,7 +2325,7 @@ route_match_ipv6_address_prefix_list(void *rule, struct prefix *prefix,
 {
        struct prefix_list *plist;
 
-       if (type == RMAP_BGP) {
+       if (type == RMAP_BGP && prefix->family == AF_INET6) {
                plist = prefix_list_lookup(AFI_IP6, (char *)rule);
                if (plist == NULL)
                        return RMAP_NOMATCH;