From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35891A04EF; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 07:38:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076051BFC9; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 07:38:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-pj1-f53.google.com (mail-pj1-f53.google.com [209.85.216.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA132C27 for ; Mon, 1 Jun 2020 07:38:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-pj1-f53.google.com with SMTP id b7so479512pju.0 for ; Sun, 31 May 2020 22:38:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=c269wLEXs3mtZeIasdfEujvCS5CX1wa5B4m1dNNgBaQ=; b=i5Oxowv19yM5EUgKWV6FAac5SHiL0+ZGgVylkTxcbTzPybaLxItt77+TkEvVuHw+fB 82laT/GJMUmYNjIMEtxhbbma9QfqzYcjArcZXe3rSRIYkHX1b4YrUjMBCsGSnQEmj6CK oI+dqQXK5mHVQRGnn4PJupUPHfleLHj4zYGleb/CAP8kMJHz0wk/mxSTxgx8qNAioJrF yBN0e7fSdqH0gOEWUJy+f4Y1OZ2KsWyGkvkZTXGRedGOER7KVdthptLcJqi3YaaUvo2R REP203NzUm3GPltbXsaHv/3hucIS85wKVYJ/aDeWqztpFtgVc/noEiBUvqdLPX/S41uh YbNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=c269wLEXs3mtZeIasdfEujvCS5CX1wa5B4m1dNNgBaQ=; b=X6PKYlke5+FoQ8HPS/wNop/C0owDlj2GtghgRH8M8d2rrbYXAC+a5V8aRcN8mQY7D2 aIwQwMY3kb2oirTqx1zWomiDGY2UsmPgYwWNxmgEZpqnbrgicqFYDWqmnleUDY+f0SB/ 4kDyqgikODSweXS9oKUAuAkMa6tc2MxtjQ3i4RWRGwpslXHd5vyiEO+bStEZpSbf80kL /WEDfzBIn6k90T7NyncoqBai9KVcgzXpEyvcJGYJILjKaZJC9xUQ00dFpDxQJIokgeAo 7mVDS6ARLaQubeSZ8OWLQxR91iSqJW/UplDFIKVqJ9VmTyrXV6FmXmedc/Rbekyep68c VVeA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5334iZ/R/UAgo/EUSyIWNIUlmJvjrqAJ8tbTsB2Hw45DOQSyCY2F YGLE4IxI3zz/VplzgLfiI4s7Kg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxlQWfIwlbHKR8gwSw84U8ni5FejgeBtmnsmbKSsERl5wz1q1gbiG+aMTay4w/ZKNvIdeeUuw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:ed8f:: with SMTP id k15mr2954308pjy.63.1590989921280; Sun, 31 May 2020 22:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hermes.lan (204-195-22-127.wavecable.com. [204.195.22.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q189sm13339009pfc.112.2020.05.31.22.38.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 31 May 2020 22:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 31 May 2020 22:38:32 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Dekel Peled Cc: ferruh.yigit@intel.com, arybchenko@solarflare.com, orika@mellanox.com, john.mcnamara@intel.com, marko.kovacevic@intel.com, asafp@mellanox.com, matan@mellanox.com, elibr@mellanox.com, dev@dpdk.org Message-ID: <20200531223832.1cbcd75b@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <5f9b4d30b81fa68ed875106785419a43cc7a6166.1590935677.git.dekelp@mellanox.com> References: <5f9b4d30b81fa68ed875106785419a43cc7a6166.1590935677.git.dekelp@mellanox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: add fragment attribute to IPv6 item X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Sun, 31 May 2020 17:43:29 +0300 Dekel Peled wrote: > Using the current implementation of DPDK, an application cannot > match on fragmented/non-fragmented IPv6 packets in a simple way. > > In current implementation: > IPv6 header doesn't contain information regarding the packet > fragmentation. > Fragmented IPv6 packets contain a dedicated extension header, as > detailed in RFC [1], which is not yet supported in rte_flow. > Non-fragmented packets don't contain the fragment extension header. > For an application to match on non-fragmented IPv6 packets, the > current implementation doesn't provide a suitable solution. > Matching on the Next Header field is not sufficient, since additional > extension headers might be present in the same packet. > To match on fragmented IPv6 packets, the same difficulty exists. > > Proposed update: > An additional value will be added to IPv6 header struct. > This value will contain the fragmentation attribute of the packet, > providing simple means for identification of fragmented and > non-fragmented packets. > > This update changes ABI, and is proposed for the 20.11 LTS version. > > [1] http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-March/160255.html > > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled > --- > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > index b0e4199..3bc8ce1 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > @@ -787,6 +787,8 @@ struct rte_flow_item_ipv4 { > */ > struct rte_flow_item_ipv6 { > struct rte_ipv6_hdr hdr; /**< IPv6 header definition. */ > + uint32_t is_frag:1; /**< Is IPv6 packet fragmented/non-fragmented. */ > + uint32_t reserved:31; /**< Reserved, must be zero. */ > }; You can't do this in the 20.08 release it would be an ABI breakage.