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 45729A0579; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:05:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CCDC40698; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:05:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from shelob.oktetlabs.ru (shelob.oktetlabs.ru [91.220.146.113]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB1E40138 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:04:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.38.17] (aros.oktetlabs.ru [192.168.38.17]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by shelob.oktetlabs.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F7967F463; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:04:57 +0300 (MSK) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 shelob.oktetlabs.ru 7F7967F463 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=oktetlabs.ru; s=default; t=1617869097; bh=tkNUDwpvhM3P+TYdS3o6G33SWiTzSUh2zKLqaz3+s5g=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=N44Fki9AwHTG02cq2bKZewOjJK7ibSqKw0wcP11aAzz9yLldlgxtj9loy3GbA47ip 5PQxjK/fQLGCQ0FGSHfDjKV1SjylGhgZqRVtiQ9uE33lEsNqJse08PCpcxvN6ypozy 50cEfAUOvZDvcZ7f6h90xnuuJKz+pYKmxz531Zxs= To: Ori Kam , ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com, thomas@monjalon.net Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jerinj@marvell.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com, viacheslavo@nvidia.com References: <1617645874-105139-1-git-send-email-orika@nvidia.com> From: Andrew Rybchenko Organization: OKTET Labs Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:04:57 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1617645874-105139-1-git-send-email-orika@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] 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" On 4/5/21 9:04 PM, Ori Kam wrote: > 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. > > Since currenlty rte_flow works in positive way the assumtion is > that the postive 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. First of all I disagree that "API breakage" is put as a top priority. Design is a top priority, since it is a long term. aPI breakage is just a short term inconvenient. Of course, others may disagree, but that's my point of view. > 2. Simplicity. > 3. Performance. > 4. HW capabilities. > 5. rte_flow limitation. > 6. Flexability. > > 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. 3. Natively supports various tunnels without any extra changes in a shared item for all layers. > > 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. Could you expand it? Shouldn't HW offloaded flows with good checksums go into dedicated queues where as bad packets go via default path (i.e. no extra rules)? > > 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. It depends on how bad (or good0 packets are handled. > 3. Simplicity application can just look at one place to see all possible > checks. It is a drawback from my point of view, since IPv4 checksum check is out of IPv4 match item. I.e. analyzing IPv4 you should take a look at 2 different flow items. > 4. Allow future support for more tests. It is the same for both solution since per-item solution can keep reserved bits which may be used in the future. > > Cons: > 1. New item, that holds number of fields from different items. 2. Not that nice for tunnels. > > 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 flor layer 2 have passed. > 3. l3_ok - all check flor layer 2 have passed. If packet doens't have > l3 layer this check shoudl fail. > 4. l4_ok - all check flor layer 2 have passed. If packet doesn't > have l4 layer this check should fail. > 5. l2_crc_ok - the layer 2 crc is O.K. it is possible that the crc will > be O.K. but the l3_ok will be 0. it is not possible that l2_crc_ok will > be 0 and the l3_ok will be 0. > 6. ipv4_csum_ok - IPv4 checksum is O.K. > 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 > packet 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 | 19 ++++++++++++++++ > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > index aec2ba1..58b116e 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > @@ -1398,6 +1398,25 @@ 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. > + > +- ``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. > + 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 3 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 packet len. > + > Actions > ~~~~~~~ > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > index 6cc5713..f6888a1 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > @@ -551,6 +551,15 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type { > * See struct rte_flow_item_geneve_opt > */ > RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_GENEVE_OPT, > + > + /** > + * [META] > + * > + * Matches on packet integrity. > + * > + * See struct rte_flow_item_packet_integrity_checks. > + */ > + RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_PACKET_INTEGRITY_CHECKS, > }; > > /** > @@ -1685,6 +1694,43 @@ struct rte_flow_item_geneve_opt { > }; > #endif > > +struct rte_flow_item_packet_integrity_checks { > + uint32_t level; > + /**< Packet encapsulation level the item should apply to. > + * @see rte_flow_action_rss > + */ > +RTE_STD_C11 > + 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 checksum is valid. */ > + uint64_t ipv4_csum_ok:1; > + /**< L3 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 packet len. */ > + uint64_t reserved:56; > + }; > + uint64_t value; > + }; > +}; > + > +#ifndef __cplusplus > +static const struct rte_flow_item_sanity_checks > + rte_flow_item_sanity_checks_mask = { > + .value = 0, > +}; > +#endif > + > /** > * Matching pattern item definition. > * >