Re: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF

[bharath paulraj <bharathpaul@gmail.com>]

Hi Team,

May I have some update on my previous mail? I am here stuck in flow
creation.

Thanks,
Bharath

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:13 PM, bharath paulraj <bharathpaul@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Michael and All,
>
>          I am unable to set the rule to receive the packet on the VF.
> Below is my setup.
>
> 1. Creating one virtual function with one queue, in one of my port, p2p1.
> *    modprobe ixgbe MQ=1 max_vfs=1 RSS=1 allow_unsupported_sfp=1 *
> 2. Below is the interface status after creating one virtual function.
> [root@XXXX sriov]# ifconfig p2p1
> p2p1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr A0:36:9F:86:C2:74
>           inet6 addr: fe80::a236:9fff:fe86:c274/64 Scope:Link
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING PROMISC MULTICAST  MTU:1500 Metric:1
>           RX packets:2540 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:3 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>           RX bytes:157456 (153.7 KiB)  TX bytes:258 (258.0 b)
>
> [root@XXXX sriov]# ifconfig p2p1_0
> p2p1_0    Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr DA:61:95:CD:AF:35
>           inet6 addr: fe80::d861:95ff:fecd:af35/64 Scope:Link
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:12 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>           RX bytes:360 (360.0 b)  TX bytes:740 (740.0 b)
> 3. Next I am enable ntuple
> *ethtool -K p2p1  ntuple on *
> 4. Now I am adding below rule
>
> *ethtool -N p2p1   flow-type udp4 dst-port 4789 action 0x100000000 --> VF
> 0, queue 0 ethtool -N p2p1   flow-type udp4 dst-port 4790 action
> 0x000000000 --> PF queue 0 *
> 5. [root@XXX sriov]# ethtool -n p2p1
> 1 RX rings available
> Total 2 rules
>
> Filter: 2044
>         Rule Type: UDP over IPv4
>         Src IP addr: 0.0.0.0 mask: 255.255.255.255
>         Dest IP addr: 0.0.0.0 mask: 255.255.255.255
>         TOS: 0x0 mask: 0xff
>         Src port: 0 mask: 0xffff
>         Dest port: 4790 mask: 0x0
>         VLAN EtherType: 0x0 mask: 0xffff
>         VLAN: 0x0 mask: 0xffff
>         User-defined: 0x0 mask: 0xffffffffffffffff
>         Action: Direct to queue 0
>
> Filter: 2045
>         Rule Type: UDP over IPv4
>         Src IP addr: 0.0.0.0 mask: 255.255.255.255
>         Dest IP addr: 0.0.0.0 mask: 255.255.255.255
>         TOS: 0x0 mask: 0xff
>         Src port: 0 mask: 0xffff
>         Dest port: 4789 mask: 0x0
>         VLAN EtherType: 0x0 mask: 0xffff
>         VLAN: 0x0 mask: 0xffff
>         User-defined: 0x0 mask: 0xffffffffffffffff
>         Action: Direct to queue 0
> *    >> Won't it show the VF queue numbers here?*
>
> 6. Start the VM over p2p1_0
> 7. Below is the Packet I am sending
> a) Dest MAC - VF Mac, Src MAC - any untagged, src ip - 1.1.1.1 dest ip -
> 2.2.2.2 src port - 100 dest port - 4789
> b) Dest MAC - VF Mac, Src MAC - any, untagged, src ip - 1.1.1.1 dest ip -
> 2.2.2.2 src port - 100 dest port - 4790
> c) Dest MAC - VF Mac, untagged, src ip - 1.1.1.1 dest ip - 2.2.2.2 src
> port - 100 dest port - 4791
>
> All the above testing is done on centOs-6.7 with ixgbe version - 4.3.13
> with patch you mentioned on 82599 Ethernet controller
> Linux XXX 2.6.32-573.22.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Mar 23 03:35:39 UTC 2016
> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
>
> *Observation: *
> If the packet matches the rule, I am not able to see the packet in the VF,
> instead I am able to see the packet in PF.
> for the packets a) and b), I am able to see te packet only in PF. Even if
> the packet destination MAC is VF's MAC,
> I am able to see only in PF.
> If the packet is not matching the rule, then I am able to see the packet
> in VF, provided packet destination MAC is VF's MAC.
> *Question: *
> 1) Am I mapping the queues wrongly while adding the rules?
> 2) How to Identify which VF using which Queues?
>
>     Request you to provide some help on it.
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:03 PM, bharath paulraj <bharathpaul@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks a lot Michael.  Finally i am able to see some light. I will try
>> the same in our setup and will post you the results.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Bharath
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Qiu, Michael <michael.qiu@intel.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, we could let ovs using 82599 VF to do rx/tx. I don't know what's
>>> your l2 bridge, but since ovs could work I think your bridge also could
>>> work. But I only tested with one VF.
>>>
>>> Make sure below two patches (bifurcate driver) are included in your
>>> kernel:
>>>
>>> _https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/476511/_
>>> _https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/476516/_
>>>
>>> Mostly, if your kernel version in 4.2 or newer, it should be included.
>>>
>>> After you create VF, before you passthrough the VF to guest:
>>>
>>> (vf +1) << 32 + queue-index,
>>>
>>>
>>>  1. where vf is the VF index starting from 0
>>>  2. the queue-index is 0 if multi-queue support is not turned on, and
>>>     this value is [0,1] if multiple-queue is turned on
>>>
>>>
>>> echo 1 > /sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:05\:00.0/sriov_numvfs
>>> ifconfig $(PF_INTF) up
>>> ifconfig $(VF0_INFT) up
>>> ip link set $(PF_INTF) promisc on
>>> ethtool -K $(PF_INTF) ntuple on
>>> ethtool -N $(PF_INTF) flow-type udp4 dst-port 4789 action 0x100000000
>>> (VF0 queue 0)
>>>
>>> Here we using flow director to all let packets according to the rules to
>>> the VF, But I don't know if it could let the packets to other VFs at the
>>> same time.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On 3/17/2016 2:43 PM, bharath paulraj wrote:
>>> > Hi Lu, Helin, Greg,
>>> >
>>> >   Many thanks for your response, which is really quick. Now, If I want
>>> > to implement L2 bridging with Intel virtualization technologies, using
>>> > 82599 controller, then Michael is my only hope, as getting the new
>>> > kernel versions and upstream support will take considerable amount of
>>> > time.
>>> >
>>> >    Michael, Could you please share your experience on L2 bridging
>>> > using Intel virtualization technologies.
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Bharath
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Rose, Gregory V
>>> > <gregory.v.rose@intel.com <mailto:gregory.v.rose@intel.com>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >     Intel has not supported promiscuous mode for virtual functions due
>>> >     to the security concerns mentioned below.
>>> >
>>> >     There will be upstream support in an upcoming Linux kernel for
>>> >     setting virtual functions as "trusted" and when that is available
>>> >     then Intel will allow virtual functions to enter unicast
>>> >     promiscuous mode on those Ethernet controllers that support
>>> >     promiscuous mode for virtual functions in the HW/FW.  Be aware
>>> >     that not all Intel Ethernet controllers have support for unicast
>>> >     promiscuous mode for virtual functions.  The only currently
>>> >     released product that does is the X710/XL710.
>>> >
>>> >     The key take away is that unicast promiscuous mode for X710/XL710
>>> >     virtual functions requires Linux kernel support, iproute2 package
>>> >     support and driver support.  Only when all three of these are in
>>> >     place will the feature work.
>>> >
>>> >     Thanks,
>>> >
>>> >     - Greg
>>> >
>>> >     -----Original Message-----
>>> >     From: Zhang, Helin
>>> >     Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 9:04 AM
>>> >     To: bharath paulraj <bharathpaul@gmail.com
>>> >     <mailto:bharathpaul@gmail.com>>; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com
>>> >     <mailto:wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>>; Rowden, Aaron F
>>> >     <aaron.f.rowden@intel.com <mailto:aaron.f.rowden@intel.com>>;
>>> >     Rose, Gregory V <gregory.v.rose@intel.com
>>> >     <mailto:gregory.v.rose@intel.com>>
>>> >     Cc: dev@dpdk.org <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>; Qiu, Michael
>>> >     <michael.qiu@intel.com <mailto:michael.qiu@intel.com>>; Jayakumar,
>>> >     Muthurajan <muthurajan.jayakumar@intel.com
>>> >     <mailto:muthurajan.jayakumar@intel.com>>
>>> >     Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF
>>> >
>>> >     Hi Bharath
>>> >
>>> >     For your question of "why intel does not support unicast
>>> >     promiscuos mode?", I'd ask Aaron or Greg to give answers.
>>> >     Thank you very much!
>>> >
>>> >     Regards,
>>> >     Helin
>>> >
>>> >     > -----Original Message-----
>>> >     > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org
>>> >     <mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org>] On Behalf Of bharath paulraj
>>> >     > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 11:29 PM
>>> >     > To: Lu, Wenzhuo
>>> >     > Cc: dev@dpdk.org <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
>>> >     > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Reg: promiscuous mode on VF
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Hi Lu,
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Many thanks for your response. Again I have few more queries.
>>> >     > If VF unicast promiscuous mode is not supported then can't we
>>> >     > implement a Layer 2 bridging functionality using intel
>>> >     virtualization
>>> >     > technologies? Or Is there any other way, say tweeking some
>>> hardware
>>> >     > registers or drivers, which may help us in implementing Layer 2
>>> >     bridging.
>>> >     > Also I would like to know, why intel does not support unicast
>>> >     promiscuos mode?
>>> >     > It could have been optional register settings and user should
>>> >     have had
>>> >     > a previleage to set or unset it. Besides, security reasons, is
>>> there
>>> >     > any other big reason why Intel does not support this?
>>> >     >
>>> >     > Thanks,
>>> >     > Bharath Paulraj
>>> >     >
>>> >     > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Lu, Wenzhuo
>>> >     <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com <mailto:wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>>
>>> >     > wrote:
>>> >     >
>>> >     > > Hi Bharath,
>>> >     > >
>>> >     > > >     2) Is the above supported for 82599 controller? If it is
>>> >     > > > supported
>>> >     > > in the NIC,
>>> >     > > > please provide the steps to enable.
>>> >     > > Talking about 82599, VF unicast promiscuous mode is not
>>> supported.
>>> >     > > Only broadcast and multicast can be supported.
>>> >     > >
>>> >     > > >
>>> >     > > > Thanks,
>>> >     > > > Bharath Paulraj
>>> >     > >
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     >
>>> >     > --
>>> >     > Regards,
>>> >     > Bharath
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Regards,
>>> > Bharath
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Bharath
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Bharath
>



-- 
Regards,
Bharath