From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BF51A0562; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:24:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9EF161BED; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:24:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f182.google.com (mail-qt1-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21BED4013F for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 19:24:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f182.google.com with SMTP id 18so2629240qtz.6 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:24:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=broadcom.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=91MZE2u/aw+5q+c90YhC1hN7PPdfWdP5KpmgNblAr7M=; b=EoXAWMYDwp2zuT1lU08A7ECmiSYW/UcgAkxrmi+TlFr0uZyRykMFJEdIPpBCkf6w4W DqYyBfG6crQ0kNT7/gjo8tSolvlhK6PeYnwVWHpt93kcSYcPB+G3MbT7nGW6OvopfXEu ko4w99XD+wMTs+AxUW+bEZBV6ELblnOPcEG3M= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=91MZE2u/aw+5q+c90YhC1hN7PPdfWdP5KpmgNblAr7M=; b=l8W1WQeQwn72Eeuu+2gJ7X8AJ56zh+P4dD807NnCopWwjgxBuL43yUB4Jvow69MKE0 OpVkda6rr0XwuND4H/VLWU2/rpc3sznQhnH0gYDCro9jifnAen3y43kqMfXLzX/W0olw 7A+m/CeQm/t+rZzux2ARvo8JERYKu8WWoTGAbFxnK+x2YluVShN/qxysBQ56Alz5M8rr PQJr8kAA1hXrGxHe9xOY8mhYogsqWp+hN2luHeeicsh48b6xCC27zqfFdQLL2KWkQU6O vAnw+tk+WtFKcA7AoJMxYAxv2BFVxXKK4ClRzL6n7VxwX55TyAItN9fPQNQBpuvHxu06 j4hw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530/4f5FjSHl1/H1ygvoH4MJ07ouStO4byoMJZDngaenwK/BiRG0 ju1PcAs660OZB5ejzHe3mj88+0Ctj0imJsCkn33K0w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwt9Aw4kTNDEIHG9n9rBDVsUMqigrjJKS7h9ne58Oaf7fZSZdd5e+308MVoeGzqHKlN50ldiZTw1aHyY7jgj6k= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7a63:: with SMTP id w3mr30027282qtt.371.1618421088202; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:24:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210414160930.14928-1-getelson@nvidia.com> <20210414160930.14928-2-getelson@nvidia.com> In-Reply-To: <20210414160930.14928-2-getelson@nvidia.com> From: Ajit Khaparde Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:24:31 -0700 Message-ID: To: Gregory Etelson Cc: Ori Kam , Andrew Rybchenko , dpdk-dev , Ferruh Yigit , Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran , Jerin Jacob , Olivier Matz , Thomas Monjalon , Slava Ovsiienko , Matan Azrad , Raslan Darawsheh Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="000000000000171e8e05bff20635" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] ethdev: add packet integrity checks X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" --000000000000171e8e05bff20635 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:10 AM Gregory Etelson wrote: > > From: Ori Kam > > Currently, DPDK application can offload the checksum check, > and report it in the mbuf. > > However, as more and more applications are offloading some or all > logic and action to the HW, there is a need to check the packet > integrity so the right decision can be taken. > > The application logic can be positive meaning if the packet is > valid jump / do actions, or negative if packet is not valid > jump to SW / do actions (like drop) a, and add default flow > (match all in low priority) that will direct the miss packet > to the miss path. Unless I missed it, How do you specify the negative case? Can you provide an example as well? > > > Since currently rte_flow works in positive way the assumption is > that the positive way will be the common way in this case also. > > When thinking what is the best API to implement such feature, > we need to considure the following (in no specific order): > 1. API breakage. > 2. Simplicity. > 3. Performance. > 4. HW capabilities. > 5. rte_flow limitation. > 6. Flexibility. > > First option: Add integrity flags to each of the items. > For example add checksum_ok to ipv4 item. > > Pros: > 1. No new rte_flow item. > 2. Simple in the way that on each item the app can see > what checks are available. > > Cons: > 1. API breakage. > 2. increase number of flows, since app can't add global rule and > must have dedicated flow for each of the flow combinations, for example > matching on icmp traffic or UDP/TCP traffic with IPv4 / IPv6 will > result in 5 flows. > > Second option: dedicated item > > Pros: > 1. No API breakage, and there will be no for some time due to having > extra space. (by using bits) > 2. Just one flow to support the icmp or UDP/TCP traffic with IPv4 / > IPv6. > 3. Simplicity application can just look at one place to see all possible > checks. > 4. Allow future support for more tests. > > Cons: > 1. New item, that holds number of fields from different items. > > For starter the following bits are suggested: > 1. packet_ok - means that all HW checks depending on packet layer have > passed. This may mean that in some HW such flow should be splited to > number of flows or fail. > 2. l2_ok - all check for layer 2 have passed. > 3. l3_ok - all check for layer 3 have passed. If packet doesn't have > l3 layer this check should fail. > 4. l4_ok - all check for layer 4 have passed. If packet doesn't > have l4 layer this check should fail. > 5. l2_crc_ok - the layer 2 crc is O.K. > 6. ipv4_csum_ok - IPv4 checksum is O.K. it is possible that the > IPv4 checksum will be O.K. but the l3_ok will be 0. it is not > possible that checksum will be 0 and the l3_ok will be 1. > 7. l4_csum_ok - layer 4 checksum is O.K. > 8. l3_len_OK - check that the reported layer 3 len is smaller than the > frame len. > > Example of usage: > 1. check packets from all possible layers for integrity. > flow create integrity spec packet_ok = 1 mask packet_ok = 1 ..... > > 2. Check only packet with layer 4 (UDP / TCP) > flow create integrity spec l3_ok = 1, l4_ok = 1 mask l3_ok = 1 l4_ok = 1 > > Signed-off-by: Ori Kam > --- > doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 20 +++++++++++ > doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst | 5 +++ > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > index e1b93ecedf..1dd2301a07 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > @@ -1398,6 +1398,26 @@ Matches a eCPRI header. > - ``hdr``: eCPRI header definition (``rte_ecpri.h``). > - Default ``mask`` matches nothing, for all eCPRI messages. > > +Item: ``PACKET_INTEGRITY_CHECKS`` > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > + > +Matches packet integrity. > +For some devices application needs to enable integration checks in HW > +before using this item. > + > +- ``level``: the encapsulation level that should be checked. level 0 means the > + default PMD mode (Can be inner most / outermost). value of 1 means outermost > + and higher value means inner header. See also RSS level. > +- ``packet_ok``: All HW packet integrity checks have passed based on the max > + layer of the packet. > +- ``l2_ok``: all layer 2 HW integrity checks passed. > +- ``l3_ok``: all layer 3 HW integrity checks passed. > +- ``l4_ok``: all layer 4 HW integrity checks passed. > +- ``l2_crc_ok``: layer 2 crc check passed. > +- ``ipv4_csum_ok``: ipv4 checksum check passed. > +- ``l4_csum_ok``: layer 4 checksum check passed. > +- ``l3_len_ok``: the layer 3 len is smaller than the frame len. > + > Actions > ~~~~~~~ > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst > index a0b907994a..986f749384 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst > @@ -168,6 +168,11 @@ New Features > the events across multiple stages. > * This also reduced the scheduling overhead on a event device. > > +* **Added packet integrity match to RTE flow rules.** > + > + * Added ``PACKET_INTEGRITY_CHECKS`` flow item. > + * Added ``rte_flow_item_integrity`` data structure. > + > * **Updated testpmd.** > > * Added a command line option to configure forced speed for Ethernet port. > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > index c476a0f59d..446ff48140 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > @@ -551,6 +551,17 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type { > * See struct rte_flow_item_geneve_opt > */ > RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_GENEVE_OPT, > + > + /** > + * [META] > + * > + * Matches on packet integrity. > + * For some devices application needs to enable integration checks in HW > + * before using this item. > + * > + * See struct rte_flow_item_integrity. > + */ > + RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_INTEGRITY, > }; > > /** > @@ -1685,6 +1696,44 @@ rte_flow_item_geneve_opt_mask = { > }; > #endif > > +__extension__ > +struct rte_flow_item_integrity { > + uint32_t level; > + /**< Packet encapsulation level the item should apply to. > + * @see rte_flow_action_rss > + */ > + union { > + struct { > + uint64_t packet_ok:1; > + /** The packet is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + uint64_t l2_ok:1; > + /**< L2 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + uint64_t l3_ok:1; > + /**< L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + uint64_t l4_ok:1; > + /**< L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + uint64_t l2_crc_ok:1; > + /**< L2 layer crc is valid. */ > + uint64_t ipv4_csum_ok:1; > + /**< IPv4 layer checksum is valid. */ > + uint64_t l4_csum_ok:1; > + /**< L4 layer checksum is valid. */ > + uint64_t l3_len_ok:1; > + /**< The l3 len is smaller than the frame len. */ > + uint64_t reserved:56; > + }; > + uint64_t value; > + }; > +}; > + > +#ifndef __cplusplus > +static const struct rte_flow_item_integrity > +rte_flow_item_integrity_mask = { > + .level = 0, > + .value = 0, > +}; > +#endif > + > /** > * Matching pattern item definition. > * > -- > 2.25.1 > --000000000000171e8e05bff20635--