Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check in front to jump over ntuple filter case

["Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhao1, Wei
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 10:57 PM
> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; mocan <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check in front
> to jump over ntuple filter case
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zhang, Qi Z
> > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:31 AM
> > To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>; mocan <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
> > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> > Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check in
> > front to jump over ntuple filter case
> >
> > Hi Wei:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Zhao1, Wei
> > > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:10 AM
> > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; mocan <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> > > Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check
> > > in front to jump over ntuple filter case
> > >
> > > Hi, qi
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Zhang, Qi Z
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:36 AM
> > > > To: Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>; mocan
> <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
> > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> > > > Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check
> > > > in front to jump over ntuple filter case
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Zhao1, Wei
> > > > > Sent: Monday, October 8, 2018 2:46 AM
> > > > > To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; mocan
> > > > > <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
> > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>
> > > > > Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple
> > > > > check in front to jump over ntuple filter case
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Zhang, Qi Z
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 7:14 PM
> > > > > > To: mocan <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>; Zhao1, Wei
> > > <wei.zhao1@intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple
> > > > > > check in front to jump over ntuple filter case
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, got your point. We should not reject a possible valid fdir
> > > > > > flow at n-tuple flow check stage.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Review-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree with the point of " We should not reject a possible
> > > > > valid fdir flow at n-tuple flow check stage".
> > > > > But, I think the fix patch should be more generic for all types
> > > > > filter of this problem.
> > > > > Maybe, we should delete all " goto out"  in function
> > > ixgbe_flow_create().
> > > > > Then, it will go to ntuple filter and  ethertype filter, syn
> > > > > filter and fdir filter ,l2_tn_filter one by one.
> > > > > And aslo, we should code as
> > > > >
> > > > > {
> > > > >
> > > > > Ntuple:
> > > > > ..........
> > > > > if(ret)
> > > > >     Goto ethertype
> > > > > ..........
> > > > >
> > > > > Ethertype:
> > > > >
> > > > > ..........
> > > > > if(ret)
> > > > >     Goto fdir filter
> > > > > .........
> > > > >
> > > > > fdir filter:
> > > > >
> > > > > if(ret)
> > > > >   Goto l2_tn_filter
> > > > >
> > > > > l2_tn_filter:
> > > > >
> > > > > .............
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > This fix patch only solve the problem of  ntuple and fdir.
> > > > > Qi, What do you think of this?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not the author of this part of code, so my understanding of
> > > > current implementation is:
> > > > It assume a flow will not be ambiguous which means if it match to
> > > > some filter parser (ixgbe_parse_xxx_filter), it is not necessary
> > > > to match on a different filter.
> > > > But I'm not sure if the assumption is correct or not, (this
> > > > depends on the knowledge of the device capability), So do you mean
> > > > the assumption is not correct? If you think a generic fix is
> > > > necessary, I have below comments
> > >
> > > Yes, the assumption is may cause bug, this patch is an evidence,
> > > maybe this user has encountered this problem.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 1. it is better be done by Intel people with enough validation
> > >
> > > I agree with you, I will commit a generic fix patch later.
> > >
> > > >2. two options  for patch submit.
> > > > 	Submit a v2 with the generic fix, and it will be captured in this
> release.
> > > > 	If it is not urgent, we can just accept current one first, then
> > > >have a  separate patch in next release.
> > >
> > > Ok, If someone supply a v2 with the generic fix, I will ack.
> > >
> >
> > Just want to confirm with you , are you agree to merge this patch?
> > Or you think v2 with generic fix is necessary?
> > From my view, the patch can be accepted, since it just add more strict
> > check in cons_parse_ntuple_filter, it does not break anything, and it
> > fix the specific issue.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Qi
> >
> >
> 
> Of course, it can be merge, but a more generic still need.
> Acked-by:  Wei Zhao <wei.zhao1@intel.com>

Applied to dpdk-next-net-intel with below changes

1) change the title to "fix to reject a valid flow during ntuple check"
2) more detail commit log base on auther's comment in mail list
3) add fix line and Cc stable@dpdk.org

Thanks
Qi