* [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix validation of VXLAN/VXLAN-GPE specs
@ 2020-03-23 14:21 Raslan Darawsheh
2020-03-23 16:21 ` Matan Azrad
2020-03-24 9:23 ` Raslan Darawsheh
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Raslan Darawsheh @ 2020-03-23 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: matan, viacheslavo; +Cc: dev, stable
Trying to create zero spec for vni wasn't allowed, to
avoid matching all packets from previous layer (udp).
This behavior is incorrect, since VXLAN is being identified
through the outer UDP destination port.
Currently, if the user didn't specify outer UDP destination
port the PMD will automatically match only on outer
UDP port of 4798, and if the user want to match on some none
standard port he need to specify it explicitly in the rule.
This removes the limitation of vni spec to be able to match any
vni.
Fixes: 23c1d42c ("net/mlx5: split flow validation to dedicated function")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@mellanox.com>
---
drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 31 -------------------------------
1 file changed, 31 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
index 41072da..2ef6558 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
@@ -1836,7 +1836,6 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan(const struct rte_flow_item *item,
uint32_t vlan_id;
uint8_t vni[4];
} id = { .vlan_id = 0, };
- uint32_t vlan_id = 0;
if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_TUNNEL)
@@ -1863,23 +1862,8 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan(const struct rte_flow_item *item,
return ret;
if (spec) {
memcpy(&id.vni[1], spec->vni, 3);
- vlan_id = id.vlan_id;
memcpy(&id.vni[1], mask->vni, 3);
- vlan_id &= id.vlan_id;
}
- /*
- * Tunnel id 0 is equivalent as not adding a VXLAN layer, if
- * only this layer is defined in the Verbs specification it is
- * interpreted as wildcard and all packets will match this
- * rule, if it follows a full stack layer (ex: eth / ipv4 /
- * udp), all packets matching the layers before will also
- * match this rule. To avoid such situation, VNI 0 is
- * currently refused.
- */
- if (!vlan_id)
- return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
- RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
- "VXLAN vni cannot be 0");
if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER))
return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
@@ -1918,7 +1902,6 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan_gpe(const struct rte_flow_item *item,
uint32_t vlan_id;
uint8_t vni[4];
} id = { .vlan_id = 0, };
- uint32_t vlan_id = 0;
if (!priv->config.l3_vxlan_en)
return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
@@ -1956,22 +1939,8 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan_gpe(const struct rte_flow_item *item,
"VxLAN-GPE protocol"
" not supported");
memcpy(&id.vni[1], spec->vni, 3);
- vlan_id = id.vlan_id;
memcpy(&id.vni[1], mask->vni, 3);
- vlan_id &= id.vlan_id;
}
- /*
- * Tunnel id 0 is equivalent as not adding a VXLAN layer, if only this
- * layer is defined in the Verbs specification it is interpreted as
- * wildcard and all packets will match this rule, if it follows a full
- * stack layer (ex: eth / ipv4 / udp), all packets matching the layers
- * before will also match this rule. To avoid such situation, VNI 0
- * is currently refused.
- */
- if (!vlan_id)
- return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
- RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
- "VXLAN-GPE vni cannot be 0");
if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER))
return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix validation of VXLAN/VXLAN-GPE specs
2020-03-23 14:21 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix validation of VXLAN/VXLAN-GPE specs Raslan Darawsheh
@ 2020-03-23 16:21 ` Matan Azrad
2020-03-24 9:23 ` Raslan Darawsheh
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Matan Azrad @ 2020-03-23 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Raslan Darawsheh, Slava Ovsiienko; +Cc: dev, stable
From: Raslan Darawsheh
> Trying to create zero spec for vni wasn't allowed, to avoid matching all
> packets from previous layer (udp).
> This behavior is incorrect, since VXLAN is being identified through the outer
> UDP destination port.
>
> Currently, if the user didn't specify outer UDP destination port the PMD will
> automatically match only on outer UDP port of 4798, and if the user want to
> match on some none standard port he need to specify it explicitly in the rule.
>
> This removes the limitation of vni spec to be able to match any vni.
>
> Fixes: 23c1d42c ("net/mlx5: split flow validation to dedicated function")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@mellanox.com>
Acked-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix validation of VXLAN/VXLAN-GPE specs
2020-03-23 14:21 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix validation of VXLAN/VXLAN-GPE specs Raslan Darawsheh
2020-03-23 16:21 ` Matan Azrad
@ 2020-03-24 9:23 ` Raslan Darawsheh
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Raslan Darawsheh @ 2020-03-24 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Raslan Darawsheh, Matan Azrad, Slava Ovsiienko; +Cc: dev, stable
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Raslan Darawsheh
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2020 4:22 PM
> To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
> <viacheslavo@mellanox.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix validation of VXLAN/VXLAN-GPE
> specs
>
> Trying to create zero spec for vni wasn't allowed, to
> avoid matching all packets from previous layer (udp).
> This behavior is incorrect, since VXLAN is being identified
> through the outer UDP destination port.
>
> Currently, if the user didn't specify outer UDP destination
> port the PMD will automatically match only on outer
> UDP port of 4798, and if the user want to match on some none
> standard port he need to specify it explicitly in the rule.
>
> This removes the limitation of vni spec to be able to match any
> vni.
>
> Fixes: 23c1d42c ("net/mlx5: split flow validation to dedicated function")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@mellanox.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 31 -------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 31 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> index 41072da..2ef6558 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> @@ -1836,7 +1836,6 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
> uint32_t vlan_id;
> uint8_t vni[4];
> } id = { .vlan_id = 0, };
> - uint32_t vlan_id = 0;
>
>
> if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_TUNNEL)
> @@ -1863,23 +1862,8 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
> return ret;
> if (spec) {
> memcpy(&id.vni[1], spec->vni, 3);
> - vlan_id = id.vlan_id;
> memcpy(&id.vni[1], mask->vni, 3);
> - vlan_id &= id.vlan_id;
> }
> - /*
> - * Tunnel id 0 is equivalent as not adding a VXLAN layer, if
> - * only this layer is defined in the Verbs specification it is
> - * interpreted as wildcard and all packets will match this
> - * rule, if it follows a full stack layer (ex: eth / ipv4 /
> - * udp), all packets matching the layers before will also
> - * match this rule. To avoid such situation, VNI 0 is
> - * currently refused.
> - */
> - if (!vlan_id)
> - return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
> - RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> - "VXLAN vni cannot be 0");
> if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER))
> return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
> RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> @@ -1918,7 +1902,6 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan_gpe(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
> uint32_t vlan_id;
> uint8_t vni[4];
> } id = { .vlan_id = 0, };
> - uint32_t vlan_id = 0;
>
> if (!priv->config.l3_vxlan_en)
> return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
> @@ -1956,22 +1939,8 @@ mlx5_flow_validate_item_vxlan_gpe(const struct
> rte_flow_item *item,
> "VxLAN-GPE protocol"
> " not supported");
> memcpy(&id.vni[1], spec->vni, 3);
> - vlan_id = id.vlan_id;
> memcpy(&id.vni[1], mask->vni, 3);
> - vlan_id &= id.vlan_id;
> }
> - /*
> - * Tunnel id 0 is equivalent as not adding a VXLAN layer, if only this
> - * layer is defined in the Verbs specification it is interpreted as
> - * wildcard and all packets will match this rule, if it follows a full
> - * stack layer (ex: eth / ipv4 / udp), all packets matching the layers
> - * before will also match this rule. To avoid such situation, VNI 0
> - * is currently refused.
> - */
> - if (!vlan_id)
> - return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
> - RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> - "VXLAN-GPE vni cannot be 0");
> if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER))
> return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
> RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> --
> 2.7.4
Patch applied to next-net-mlx,
Kindest regards,
Raslan Darawsheh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-03-24 9:23 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-03-23 14:21 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix validation of VXLAN/VXLAN-GPE specs Raslan Darawsheh
2020-03-23 16:21 ` Matan Azrad
2020-03-24 9:23 ` Raslan Darawsheh
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).