* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] acl: fix invalid results for rule with zero priority
@ 2018-08-24 16:47 Konstantin Ananyev
2018-09-16 9:56 ` Thomas Monjalon
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Konstantin Ananyev @ 2018-08-24 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dev; +Cc: Konstantin Ananyev
If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules
that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results.
The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-match nodes.
See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79.
The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero
to be a valid priority for the rule.
Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library")
Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
---
lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h | 2 +-
test/test/test_acl.h | 18 ++++++++++++------
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h b/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h
index 34c3b9c6a..aa22e70c6 100644
--- a/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h
+++ b/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ enum {
RTE_ACL_TYPE_SHIFT = 29,
RTE_ACL_MAX_INDEX = RTE_LEN2MASK(RTE_ACL_TYPE_SHIFT, uint32_t),
RTE_ACL_MAX_PRIORITY = RTE_ACL_MAX_INDEX,
- RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 0,
+ RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 1,
};
#define RTE_ACL_MASKLEN_TO_BITMASK(v, s) \
diff --git a/test/test/test_acl.h b/test/test/test_acl.h
index c4811c8f5..bbb0447a8 100644
--- a/test/test/test_acl.h
+++ b/test/test/test_acl.h
@@ -80,34 +80,40 @@ enum {
struct rte_acl_ipv4vlan_rule invalid_layout_rules[] = {
/* test src and dst address */
{
- .data = {.userdata = 1, .category_mask = 1},
+ .data = {.userdata = 1, .category_mask = 1,
+ .priority = 1},
.src_addr = IPv4(10,0,0,0),
.src_mask_len = 24,
},
{
- .data = {.userdata = 2, .category_mask = 1},
+ .data = {.userdata = 2, .category_mask = 1,
+ .priority = 1},
.dst_addr = IPv4(10,0,0,0),
.dst_mask_len = 24,
},
/* test src and dst ports */
{
- .data = {.userdata = 3, .category_mask = 1},
+ .data = {.userdata = 3, .category_mask = 1,
+ .priority = 1},
.dst_port_low = 100,
.dst_port_high = 100,
},
{
- .data = {.userdata = 4, .category_mask = 1},
+ .data = {.userdata = 4, .category_mask = 1,
+ .priority = 1},
.src_port_low = 100,
.src_port_high = 100,
},
/* test proto */
{
- .data = {.userdata = 5, .category_mask = 1},
+ .data = {.userdata = 5, .category_mask = 1,
+ .priority = 1},
.proto = 0xf,
.proto_mask = 0xf
},
{
- .data = {.userdata = 6, .category_mask = 1},
+ .data = {.userdata = 6, .category_mask = 1,
+ .priority = 1},
.dst_port_low = 0xf,
.dst_port_high = 0xf,
}
--
2.13.6
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] acl: fix invalid results for rule with zero priority
2018-08-24 16:47 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] acl: fix invalid results for rule with zero priority Konstantin Ananyev
@ 2018-09-16 9:56 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-09-25 12:22 ` Luca Boccassi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2018-09-16 9:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev
24/08/2018 18:47, Konstantin Ananyev:
> If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules
> that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results.
> The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-match nodes.
> See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79.
> The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero
> to be a valid priority for the rule.
>
> Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library")
>
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Applied with below title, thanks
acl: forbid rule with priority zero
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] acl: fix invalid results for rule with zero priority
2018-09-16 9:56 ` Thomas Monjalon
@ 2018-09-25 12:22 ` Luca Boccassi
2018-09-25 12:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-09-25 14:34 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Luca Boccassi @ 2018-09-25 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Monjalon, Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev
On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 11:56 +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 24/08/2018 18:47, Konstantin Ananyev:
> > If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules
> > that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results.
> > The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-match
> > nodes.
> > See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79.
> > The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero
> > to be a valid priority for the rule.
> >
> > Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
>
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Applied with below title, thanks
> acl: forbid rule with priority zero
Hi,
This patch is marked for stable, but it changes an enum in a public
header so it looks like an ABI breakage? Have I got it wrong?
--
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] acl: fix invalid results for rule with zero priority
2018-09-25 12:22 ` Luca Boccassi
@ 2018-09-25 12:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-09-25 14:34 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2018-09-25 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luca Boccassi, Konstantin Ananyev; +Cc: dev
25/09/2018 14:22, Luca Boccassi:
> On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 11:56 +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 24/08/2018 18:47, Konstantin Ananyev:
> > > If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules
> > > that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results.
> > > The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-match
> > > nodes.
> > > See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79.
> > > The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero
> > > to be a valid priority for the rule.
> > >
> > > Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> >
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Applied with below title, thanks
> > acl: forbid rule with priority zero
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch is marked for stable, but it changes an enum in a public
> header so it looks like an ABI breakage? Have I got it wrong?
- RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 0,
+ RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 1,
In my understanding, the change is not breaking the ABI because
the old minimal value (0) can still be used, with the same side effect.
The new value is just removing a side effect for newly compiled apps.
Konstantin, am I right?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] acl: fix invalid results for rule with zero priority
2018-09-25 12:22 ` Luca Boccassi
2018-09-25 12:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
@ 2018-09-25 14:34 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-10-03 16:18 ` Luca Boccassi
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ananyev, Konstantin @ 2018-09-25 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luca Boccassi, Thomas Monjalon; +Cc: dev
Hi Luca,
>
> On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 11:56 +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 24/08/2018 18:47, Konstantin Ananyev:
> > > If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules
> > > that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results.
> > > The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-match
> > > nodes.
> > > See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79.
> > > The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero
> > > to be a valid priority for the rule.
> > >
> > > Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library")
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> >
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Applied with below title, thanks
> > acl: forbid rule with priority zero
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch is marked for stable, but it changes an enum in a public header
Yes it does.
> so it looks like an ABI breakage? Have I got it wrong?
Strictly speaking - yes, but priority=0 is invalid value with current implementation.
I don't think someone uses it - as in that case acl library simply wouldn't work
correctly.
Konstantin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] acl: fix invalid results for rule with zero priority
2018-09-25 14:34 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
@ 2018-10-03 16:18 ` Luca Boccassi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Luca Boccassi @ 2018-10-03 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ananyev, Konstantin, Thomas Monjalon; +Cc: dev
On Tue, 2018-09-25 at 14:34 +0000, Ananyev, Konstantin wrote:
> Hi Luca,
>
> >
> > On Sun, 2018-09-16 at 11:56 +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 24/08/2018 18:47, Konstantin Ananyev:
> > > > If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules
> > > > that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results.
> > > > The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-
> > > > match
> > > > nodes.
> > > > See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79.
> > > > The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero
> > > > to be a valid priority for the rule.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library")
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > >
> > > Applied with below title, thanks
> > > acl: forbid rule with priority zero
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This patch is marked for stable, but it changes an enum in a public
> > header
>
> Yes it does.
>
> > so it looks like an ABI breakage? Have I got it wrong?
>
> Strictly speaking - yes, but priority=0 is invalid value with current
> implementation.
> I don't think someone uses it - as in that case acl library simply
> wouldn't work
> correctly.
> Konstantin
Ok, I'll include this patch in 16.11.9 then, thanks for clarifying.
--
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-10-03 16:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-08-24 16:47 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] acl: fix invalid results for rule with zero priority Konstantin Ananyev
2018-09-16 9:56 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-09-25 12:22 ` Luca Boccassi
2018-09-25 12:57 ` Thomas Monjalon
2018-09-25 14:34 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2018-10-03 16:18 ` Luca Boccassi
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).