From: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
Cc: anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com,
Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>,
Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 19:34:31 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a8761918-7b0f-6156-b264-338ea5fd285d@caviumnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171212134456.4x3uaus2poovddlf@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com>
Hi Nelio,
On 12/12/2017 07:14 PM, Nelio Laranjeiro wrote:
> Hi Anoob,
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 06:13:08PM +0530, Anoob Joseph wrote:
>> Hi Nelio,
>>
>>
>> On 12/11/2017 07:34 PM, Nelio Laranjeiro wrote:
>>> Mellanox INNOVA NIC needs to have final target queue actions to perform
>>> inline crypto.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes in v3:
>>>
>>> * removed PASSTHRU test for ingress.
>>> * removed check on configured queues for the queue action.
>>>
>>> Changes in v2:
>>>
>>> * Test the rule by PASSTHRU/RSS/QUEUE and apply the first one validated.
>>> ---
>>> examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>> examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.h | 2 +-
>>> 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.c
>>> index 17bd7620d..1b8b251c8 100644
>>> --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.c
>>> +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.c
>>> @@ -142,6 +142,7 @@ create_session(struct ipsec_ctx *ipsec_ctx, struct ipsec_sa *sa)
>>> rte_eth_dev_get_sec_ctx(
>>> sa->portid);
>>> const struct rte_security_capability *sec_cap;
>>> + int ret = 0;
>>> sa->sec_session = rte_security_session_create(ctx,
>>> &sess_conf, ipsec_ctx->session_pool);
>>> @@ -201,15 +202,67 @@ create_session(struct ipsec_ctx *ipsec_ctx, struct ipsec_sa *sa)
>>> sa->action[0].type = RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_SECURITY;
>>> sa->action[0].conf = sa->sec_session;
>>> - sa->action[1].type = RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_END;
>>> -
>>> sa->attr.egress = (sa->direction ==
>>> RTE_SECURITY_IPSEC_SA_DIR_EGRESS);
>>> sa->attr.ingress = (sa->direction ==
>>> RTE_SECURITY_IPSEC_SA_DIR_INGRESS);
>>> + if (sa->attr.ingress) {
>>> + uint8_t rss_key[40];
>>> + struct rte_eth_rss_conf rss_conf = {
>>> + .rss_key = rss_key,
>>> + .rss_key_len = 40,
>>> + };
>>> + struct rte_eth_dev *eth_dev;
>>> + union {
>>> + struct rte_flow_action_rss rss;
>>> + struct {
>>> + const struct rte_eth_rss_conf *rss_conf;
>>> + uint16_t num;
>>> + uint16_t queue[RTE_MAX_QUEUES_PER_PORT];
>>> + } local;
>>> + } action_rss;
>>> + unsigned int i;
>>> + unsigned int j;
>>> +
>>> + sa->action[2].type = RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_END;
>>> + /* Try RSS. */
>>> + sa->action[1].type = RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_RSS;
>>> + sa->action[1].conf = &action_rss;
>>> + eth_dev = ctx->device;
>>> + rte_eth_dev_rss_hash_conf_get(sa->portid,
>>> + &rss_conf);
>>> + for (i = 0, j = 0;
>>> + i < eth_dev->data->nb_rx_queues; ++i)
>>> + if (eth_dev->data->rx_queues[i])
>>> + action_rss.local.queue[j++] = i;
>>> + action_rss.local.num = j;
>>> + action_rss.local.rss_conf = &rss_conf;
>>> + ret = rte_flow_validate(sa->portid, &sa->attr,
>>> + sa->pattern, sa->action,
>>> + &err);
>>> + if (!ret)
>>> + goto flow_create;
>>> + /* Try Queue. */
>>> + sa->action[1].type = RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_QUEUE;
>>> + sa->action[1].conf =
>>> + &(struct rte_flow_action_queue){
>>> + .index = 0,
>>> + };
>>> + ret = rte_flow_validate(sa->portid, &sa->attr,
>>> + sa->pattern, sa->action,
>>> + &err);
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + goto flow_create_failure;
>>> + } else {
>>> + sa->action[1].type =
>>> + RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_PASSTHRU;
>>> + sa->action[2].type = RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_END;
>> We would need flow validate here also. And, for egress, the application will
>> be able to set metadata (set_pkt_metadata API) per packet. So flow may not
>> be required for such cases. But if the flow create fails, the session create
>> would also fail. It might be better if we check whether the PMD would need
>> metadata (part of the sec_cap->ol_flags).
> Seems what you are describing is outside of this scope which is only
> related to correctly implement the generic flow API with terminal
> actions.
Since SECURITY+PASSTHRU won't be terminal, this code segment might be
misleading.
> I'll suggest to add it in another patch.
>
> Anyway, the flow validate is useful in the ingress to select the best
> behavior RSS/Queue, if the flow validate may fail, the flow create
> should also fail for the same reasons.
>
>> If the driver doesn't need metadata and the flow create fails, then
>> the create session should fail. Any thoughts?
> How the create_session() can fail without having all the informations
> (pattern, metadata, ...) the application wants to offload?
Is flow mandatory for the egress traffic? My understanding is, it's not.
"set_pkt_metadata" API gives application the ability to do the lookup
and pass the info along with the packet. In such cases, flow creation is
not necessary.
I do agree that this is outside the scope of this patch, but I was just
curious about the behavior since you touched the topic.
>
>>> + }
>>> +flow_create:
>>> sa->flow = rte_flow_create(sa->portid,
>>> &sa->attr, sa->pattern, sa->action, &err);
>>> if (sa->flow == NULL) {
>>> +flow_create_failure:
>>> RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC,
>>> "Failed to create ipsec flow msg: %s\n",
>>> err.message);
>>> diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.h b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.h
>>> index 775b316ff..3c367d392 100644
>>> --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.h
>>> +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec.h
>>> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ struct ipsec_sa {
>>> uint32_t ol_flags;
>>> #define MAX_RTE_FLOW_PATTERN (4)
>>> -#define MAX_RTE_FLOW_ACTIONS (2)
>>> +#define MAX_RTE_FLOW_ACTIONS (3)
>>> struct rte_flow_item pattern[MAX_RTE_FLOW_PATTERN];
>>> struct rte_flow_action action[MAX_RTE_FLOW_ACTIONS];
>>> struct rte_flow_attr attr;
> Thanks,
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-12 14:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-23 15:12 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix missing ingress flow attribute Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-23 15:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-29 12:30 ` Anoob
2017-11-29 12:50 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-30 10:46 ` Anoob
2017-11-30 12:28 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-01 15:04 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-01 16:26 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-04 14:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix missing ingress flow attribute Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-11 11:50 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-12-04 14:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-07 9:47 ` Anoob
2017-12-07 12:22 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-08 14:00 ` Anoob
2017-12-08 14:40 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-08 16:40 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-11 8:21 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-11 9:00 ` Anoob
2017-12-11 14:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix missing ingress flow attribute Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-12 7:14 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-11 14:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-12 12:43 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-12 13:44 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-12 14:04 ` Anoob Joseph [this message]
2017-12-12 14:38 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-13 6:41 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-13 10:02 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-13 11:38 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-13 12:53 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-13 13:53 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-13 14:47 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-20 16:19 ` Boris Pismenny
2017-12-21 8:06 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-21 10:12 ` Boris Pismenny
2017-12-21 14:22 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2018-01-05 6:18 ` Anoob Joseph
2018-01-09 12:48 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2018-01-10 6:21 ` Anoob Joseph
2018-01-05 5:52 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-14 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix missing ingress flow attribute Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-14 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-18 8:23 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18 9:57 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-12-14 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: add Egress " Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-15 9:05 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 13:53 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-15 15:39 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 16:53 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-15 17:01 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18 10:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix missing ingress flow attribute Nelio Laranjeiro
2018-01-18 14:50 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2017-12-18 10:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-19 6:22 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18 10:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: add Egress " Nelio Laranjeiro
2018-01-08 16:13 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-01-16 16:12 ` Nicolau, Radu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a8761918-7b0f-6156-b264-338ea5fd285d@caviumnetworks.com \
--to=anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com \
--cc=radu.nicolau@intel.com \
--cc=sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).