From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pascal.mazon@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wr0-f193.google.com (mail-wr0-f193.google.com
[209.85.128.193]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29F91B369
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:50:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wr0-f193.google.com with SMTP id h9so21310799wre.12
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:50:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent
:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language;
bh=6IBCdadLkGVJB5DRn8YYa6Q0D6bMOu9RrH3eq2b2R6s=;
b=ljYuWbk9G8zvjF4NVSiIVbA74YUnCPEkSs9IZQbNFjZi0kLST4wcE5GVtDN3QHuc1Q
ve88B20IOOP4kD1QPb91qvS8V+2rpdF4vGfbBMlfMqFFC6+YIiojrDOb/NM0MNdyvcNG
5rSmxtm3c0QyfSSypVDaJySQOUhEPuP5XT6xWlrXxb9eRXaxLtYMpNIo7+lPJQHVKRxE
D3TULcawBKOwDYUpLbirivW9eZVuPPFu/v2sjKCuAvo4P0ovz86VHYtOY7OgaYrsUfL5
DOu4xwxFLL3AqldyOnzzuMaQDE/GTgSJhZGiZ+eiZZuzBh+weAZs2fHaF1qzf7AjG3CY
Dr1Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date
:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding
:content-language;
bh=6IBCdadLkGVJB5DRn8YYa6Q0D6bMOu9RrH3eq2b2R6s=;
b=pHpd1kMtlfYNNCfxSpmxCOyy58d3BXXzDtA9DPVd7OxnexnNrcAa84bJIoQc/7MNEW
jMgjV8T8ZhEoZUD4jbE9llIYpI0IfDslhT+HaOdNdrJbfo92SdUIP7mWVqG/Xx1TyY4e
muj8zyZbrsrCtL5/6GVzCSdOkewMQh0+NyRm7Kun+yDUW51gB2WsQxdofx1+C5otrEsu
Ogh49aTMiUkCi/comXNKQcfmHRpF7pA+ehoaebyah9FS6tv+TUN9d08ua8hELwinFhQi
xCgKsIUzM84tFwBGBLxRSZVtS8fen8f40OwVyswtrIaf1IEvUN+QW0jF+AEeKZTjww3z
9acg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCivsLjQHvvcq0bOeAV4M2o1SpcqEpbFjwjeoX8c814fHD9B4Kf
CvjXFb7phSkVZUWePGtHVMwlzg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226P6HjezMrEU+7Vlm32GrIWH4NkyWhD0KPuNjlOEAaDyPaurMleBQjjDaqgpgHB7fiAvc6htQ==
X-Received: by 10.223.134.132 with SMTP id 4mr3858091wrx.10.1518598238455;
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2a01:e35:2e04:96e0:c150:28ea:209e:273a?
([2a01:e35:2e04:96e0:c150:28ea:209e:273a])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 30sm8611688wri.48.2018.02.14.00.50.37
(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
Wed, 14 Feb 2018 00:50:37 -0800 (PST)
To: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>, Olga Shern <olgas@mellanox.com>,
stable@dpdk.org
References: <1518542172-9334-1-git-send-email-ophirmu@mellanox.com>
<1518546947-20932-1-git-send-email-ophirmu@mellanox.com>
From: Pascal Mazon <pascal.mazon@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <a4b42b2a-4286-5036-a66b-0ba100320503@6wind.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 09:50:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1518546947-20932-1-git-send-email-ophirmu@mellanox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] net/tap: fix promiscuous rules double
insersions
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 08:50:38 -0000
Hi Ophir,
Typo in title: s/insersions/insertions/
I'm ok on principle, I have just a few comments inline.
Regards,
Pascal
On 13/02/2018 19:35, Ophir Munk wrote:
> Running testpmd command "port stop all" followed by command "port start
> all" may result in a TAP error:
> PMD: Kernel refused TC filter rule creation (17): File exists
>
> Root cause analysis: during the execution of "port start all" command
> testpmd calls rte_eth_promiscuous_enable() while during the execution
> of "port stop all" command testpmd does not call
> rte_eth_promiscuous_enable().
Shouldn't it be rte_eth_promiscuous_disable()?
> As a result the TAP PMD is trying to add tc (traffic control command)
> promiscuous rules to the remote netvsc device consecutively. From the
> kernel point of view it is seen as an attempt to add the same rule more
> than once. In recent kernels (e.g. version 4.13) this attempt is rejected
> with a "File exists" error. In less recent kernels (e.g. version 4.4) the
> same rule may have been accepted twice successfully, which is undesirable.
>
> In the corrupted code every tc promiscuous rule included a different
> handle number parameter. If instead an identical handle number parameter is
> used for all tc promiscuous rules - all kernels will reject the second
> rule with a "File exists" error, which is easy to identify and to silently
> ignore.
>
> Fixes: 2bc06869cd94 ("net/tap: add remote netdevice traffic capture")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>
> ---
> v2: add detailed commit message
>
> drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c | 11 +++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c b/drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c
> index 65657f0..d1f4a52 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c
> @@ -123,6 +123,7 @@ enum key_status_e {
> };
>
> #define ISOLATE_HANDLE 1
> +#define REMOTE_PROMISCUOUS_HANDLE 2
>
> struct rte_flow {
> LIST_ENTRY(rte_flow) next; /* Pointer to the next rte_flow structure */
> @@ -1692,9 +1693,15 @@ int tap_flow_implicit_create(struct pmd_internals *pmd,
> * The ISOLATE rule is always present and must have a static handle, as
> * the action is changed whether the feature is enabled (DROP) or
> * disabled (PASSTHRU).
> + * There is just one REMOTE_PROMISCUOUS rule in all cases. It should
> + * have a static handle such that adding it twice will fail with EEXIST
> + * with any kernel version. Remark: old kernels may falsely accept the
> + * same REMOTE_PREMISCUOUS rules if they had different handles.
s/PREMISCUOUS/PROMISCUOUS/
> */
> if (idx == TAP_ISOLATE)
> remote_flow->msg.t.tcm_handle = ISOLATE_HANDLE;
> + else if (idx == TAP_REMOTE_PROMISC)
> + remote_flow->msg.t.tcm_handle = REMOTE_PROMISCUOUS_HANDLE;
> else
> tap_flow_set_handle(remote_flow);
> if (priv_flow_process(pmd, attr, items, actions, NULL,
> @@ -1709,12 +1716,16 @@ int tap_flow_implicit_create(struct pmd_internals *pmd,
> }
> err = tap_nl_recv_ack(pmd->nlsk_fd);
> if (err < 0) {
> + /* Silently ignore re-entering remote promiscuous rule */
> + if (errno == EEXIST && idx == TAP_REMOTE_PROMISC)
> + goto success;
> RTE_LOG(ERR, PMD,
> "Kernel refused TC filter rule creation (%d): %s\n",
> errno, strerror(errno));
> goto fail;
> }
> LIST_INSERT_HEAD(&pmd->implicit_flows, remote_flow, next);
Are we sure the previous rule is still in the registered implicit flows?
> +success:
> return 0;
> fail:
> if (remote_flow)