From: "Lukáš Šišmiš" <sismis@cesnet.cz>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: RFCv1: DPDK RTE Flow Rule Parser
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 15:16:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <be773672-77bb-4c2d-ba12-43b75ff29507@cesnet.cz> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4074 bytes --]
Hello all,
## Motivation
Recent discussions on DPDK Slack raised the idea of extracting the
rte_flow rule parser currently embedded in dpdk-testpmd into a
standalone, reusable library [1].
The main motivation is that the external applications, such as Suricata
IDS [2], often need to express hardware filtering rules in a consistent
and human-readable format.
When integrating rte_flow into Suricata [3], we encountered the lack of
a unified way to define such rules. The immediate need was to let users
specify input filters (drop/allow) determining which traffic should be
inspected.
Suricata’s existing capture modes (e.g. AF-PACKET) rely on BPF filters
[4]. Maintaining consistency across Suricata capture backends would be
ideal, but BPF and rte_flow differ significantly in expressiveness.
The other options include either dpdk-testpmd or custom rule syntax. To
not reinvent the wheel, I am leaning towards use of the testpmd syntax
for the ready-to-use generic expressibility, especiaily of the network
traffic patterns. For the reference, I am speaking of the rte_flow rule
syntax that you can define through testpmd CLI, e.g., "flow create 0
ingress pattern eth / vlan vid is 0xabc / ipv4 src is 192.168.0.1 src is
53 / tcp / end actions drop / end".
In the Slack, Thomas Monjalon concluded that it is generally welcome to
see a new parser library but we need to state it is just one way how
create rte_flow C structures. (Fine by me)
## Library proposal
The existing function flow_parse() in dpdk-testpmd already performs most
of the needed work:
int
flow_parse(const char *src, void *result, unsigned int size,
struct rte_flow_attr **attr,
struct rte_flow_item **pattern, struct rte_flow_action **actions)
It parses a rule expressed in testpmd syntax and initializes rte_flow
attributes, items, and actions.
External applications that use these structures directly can skip
redundant setup logic and rely on standard DPDK APIs (validate, create,
destroy).
For a public API, the void *result and unsigned int size parameters
appear unnecessary and could be removed. The simplified interface would
only expose the meaningful outputs (attr, pattern, actions).
## Problem statement
The main question is how to provide this parser without fragmenting
existing functionality.
I would like to extract the existing code from dpdk-testpmd to have one
parser that is available and used by both testpmd and external apps
(using the library itself).
I quickly run into the complexity of the testpmd code and how entangled
the C structures are throughout the testpmd's source code.
While the parser extraction should be possible, I wanted to check here
with the community if that is the most preferred approach.
Since the extraction moves a lot of code from place to another, there is
a very good chance that it would break all forked custom testpmds.
The other alternative is to "start simple" with an alternative
implementation, perhaps only focusing on subset of testpmd's parser
capabilities. But this would very likely lead to two places being
maintained independently.
Before taking either route, I’d like to understand the community’s
preference:
- Do you even see it as a valuable contribution for customer applications?
- Can you possibly think of an alternative way to solve the unified
human-readable format conversion? Both on the code level and interface
level.
- Is testpmd code extraction the right long-term solution, even if
disruptive? Should the private DPDK forks be taken into consideration?
Or should I start with a separate lightweight parser and revisit
integration later?
Any other feedback is welcome.
Thank you.
All the best,
Lukas
[1] https://dpdkproject.slack.com/archives/CB2UPBU48/p1759765888891329
[2] https://github.com/OISF/suricata
[3] https://github.com/OISF/suricata/pull/13950
[4] https://docs.suricata.io/en/latest/performance/ignoring-traffic.html
[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5986 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2025-11-07 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-07 14:16 Lukáš Šišmiš [this message]
2025-11-07 16:07 ` Stephen Hemminger
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=be773672-77bb-4c2d-ba12-43b75ff29507@cesnet.cz \
--to=sismis@cesnet.cz \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
/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).