patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking
@ 2020-11-03  5:42 Bing Zhao
  2020-11-05 15:02 ` Raslan Darawsheh
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Bing Zhao @ 2020-11-03  5:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: viacheslavo, matan; +Cc: dev, orika, rasland, stable

Based on the specification, eCPRI can only follow ETH (VLAN) layer
or UDP layer. When creating a flow with eCPRI item, this should be
checked and invalid layout of the layers should be rejected.

Fixes: c7eca23657b7 ("net/mlx5: add flow validation of eCPRI header")

Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
index a6e60af..11dba3b 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
@@ -2896,17 +2896,23 @@ struct mlx5_flow_tunnel_info {
 					MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_VLAN);
 	struct rte_flow_item_ecpri mask_lo;
 
+	if (!(last_item & outer_l2_vlan) &&
+	    last_item != MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_UDP)
+		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
+					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
+					  "eCPRI can only follow L2/VLAN layer"
+					  " or UDP layer.");
 	if ((last_item & outer_l2_vlan) && ether_type &&
 	    ether_type != RTE_ETHER_TYPE_ECPRI)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
-					  "eCPRI cannot follow L2/VLAN layer "
-					  "which ether type is not 0xAEFE.");
+					  "eCPRI cannot follow L2/VLAN layer"
+					  " which ether type is not 0xAEFE.");
 	if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_TUNNEL)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
-					  "eCPRI with tunnel is not supported "
-					  "right now.");
+					  "eCPRI with tunnel is not supported"
+					  " right now.");
 	if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L3)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
@@ -2914,13 +2920,14 @@ struct mlx5_flow_tunnel_info {
 	else if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_TCP)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
-					  "eCPRI cannot follow a TCP layer.");
+					  "eCPRI cannot coexist with a"
+					  " TCP layer.");
 	/* In specification, eCPRI could be over UDP layer. */
 	else if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_UDP)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
-					  "eCPRI over UDP layer is not yet "
-					  "supported right now.");
+					  "eCPRI over UDP layer is not yet"
+					  " supported right now.");
 	/* Mask for type field in common header could be zero. */
 	if (!mask)
 		mask = &rte_flow_item_ecpri_mask;
@@ -2929,13 +2936,13 @@ struct mlx5_flow_tunnel_info {
 	if (mask_lo.hdr.common.type != 0 && mask_lo.hdr.common.type != 0xff)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM_MASK, mask,
-					  "partial mask is not supported "
-					  "for protocol");
+					  "partial mask is not supported"
+					  " for protocol");
 	else if (mask_lo.hdr.common.type == 0 && mask->hdr.dummy[0] != 0)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM_MASK, mask,
-					  "message header mask must be after "
-					  "a type mask");
+					  "message header mask must be after"
+					  " a type mask");
 	return mlx5_flow_item_acceptable(item, (const uint8_t *)mask,
 					 acc_mask ? (const uint8_t *)acc_mask
 						  : (const uint8_t *)&nic_mask,
-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking
  2020-11-03  5:42 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking Bing Zhao
@ 2020-11-05 15:02 ` Raslan Darawsheh
  2020-11-06 11:34 ` Ferruh Yigit
  2020-11-11  9:28 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Bing Zhao
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Raslan Darawsheh @ 2020-11-05 15:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bing Zhao, Slava Ovsiienko, Matan Azrad; +Cc: dev, Ori Kam, stable

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 3, 2020 7:43 AM
> To: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad
> <matan@nvidia.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@nvidia.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking
> 
> Based on the specification, eCPRI can only follow ETH (VLAN) layer
> or UDP layer. When creating a flow with eCPRI item, this should be
> checked and invalid layout of the layers should be rejected.
> 
> Fixes: c7eca23657b7 ("net/mlx5: add flow validation of eCPRI header")
> 
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
> Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

Patch applied to next-net-mlx,

Kindest regards
Raslan Darawsheh 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking
  2020-11-03  5:42 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking Bing Zhao
  2020-11-05 15:02 ` Raslan Darawsheh
@ 2020-11-06 11:34 ` Ferruh Yigit
  2020-11-06 14:20   ` Bing Zhao
  2020-11-11  9:28 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Bing Zhao
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2020-11-06 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bing Zhao, viacheslavo, matan; +Cc: dev, orika, rasland, stable

On 11/3/2020 5:42 AM, Bing Zhao wrote:
> Based on the specification, eCPRI can only follow ETH (VLAN) layer
> or UDP layer. When creating a flow with eCPRI item, this should be
> checked and invalid layout of the layers should be rejected.
> 
> Fixes: c7eca23657b7 ("net/mlx5: add flow validation of eCPRI header")
> 
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
> Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
> ---
>   drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> index a6e60af..11dba3b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> @@ -2896,17 +2896,23 @@ struct mlx5_flow_tunnel_info {
>   					MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_VLAN);
>   	struct rte_flow_item_ecpri mask_lo;
>   
> +	if (!(last_item & outer_l2_vlan) &&
> +	    last_item != MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_UDP)
> +		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
> +					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
> +					  "eCPRI can only follow L2/VLAN layer"
> +					  " or UDP layer.");
>   	if ((last_item & outer_l2_vlan) && ether_type &&
>   	    ether_type != RTE_ETHER_TYPE_ECPRI)
>   		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>   					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
> -					  "eCPRI cannot follow L2/VLAN layer "
> -					  "which ether type is not 0xAEFE.");
> +					  "eCPRI cannot follow L2/VLAN layer"
> +					  " which ether type is not 0xAEFE.");
>   	if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_TUNNEL)
>   		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>   					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
> -					  "eCPRI with tunnel is not supported "
> -					  "right now.");
> +					  "eCPRI with tunnel is not supported"
> +					  " right now.");

Why these changes done, it only moves space from end of first line to beginning 
of the second line?

Overall I think no need to break the log strings, keeping them intact helps 
users search the error message in the code.
I assume the break is because of the 80 chars limit but for log strings we don't 
have that limit, unless it is too long (lets say 120 chars as thumb of rule, 
there is no official convention) I think better to not break.

What do you think remove the whitespace changes out of this commit and make 
another patch to merge the log strings?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking
  2020-11-06 11:34 ` Ferruh Yigit
@ 2020-11-06 14:20   ` Bing Zhao
  2020-11-06 17:43     ` Ferruh Yigit
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Bing Zhao @ 2020-11-06 14:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ferruh Yigit, Slava Ovsiienko, Matan Azrad
  Cc: dev, Ori Kam, Raslan Darawsheh, stable

Hi Ferruh,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 7:35 PM
> To: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
> <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasland@nvidia.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous
> layer checking
> 
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
> 
> 
> On 11/3/2020 5:42 AM, Bing Zhao wrote:
> > Based on the specification, eCPRI can only follow ETH (VLAN) layer
> or
> > UDP layer. When creating a flow with eCPRI item, this should be
> > checked and invalid layout of the layers should be rejected.
> >
> > Fixes: c7eca23657b7 ("net/mlx5: add flow validation of eCPRI
> header")
> >
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
> > Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >   drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> > b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c index a6e60af..11dba3b 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
> > @@ -2896,17 +2896,23 @@ struct mlx5_flow_tunnel_info {
> >                                       MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_VLAN);
> >       struct rte_flow_item_ecpri mask_lo;
> >
> > +     if (!(last_item & outer_l2_vlan) &&
> > +         last_item != MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_UDP)
> > +             return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
> > +                                       RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> > +                                       "eCPRI can only follow
> L2/VLAN layer"
> > +                                       " or UDP layer.");
> >       if ((last_item & outer_l2_vlan) && ether_type &&
> >           ether_type != RTE_ETHER_TYPE_ECPRI)
> >               return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
> >                                         RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> > -                                       "eCPRI cannot follow
> L2/VLAN layer "
> > -                                       "which ether type is not
> 0xAEFE.");
> > +                                       "eCPRI cannot follow
> L2/VLAN layer"
> > +                                       " which ether type is not
> > + 0xAEFE.");
> >       if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_TUNNEL)
> >               return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
> >                                         RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
> item,
> > -                                       "eCPRI with tunnel is not
> supported "
> > -                                       "right now.");
> > +                                       "eCPRI with tunnel is not
> supported"
> > +                                       " right now.");
> 
> Why these changes done, it only moves space from end of first line
> to beginning of the second line?

Yes, because when I am doing the fix. I found this log part is different from others in the same file and just want to be consistent.

> 
> Overall I think no need to break the log strings, keeping them
> intact helps users search the error message in the code.
> I assume the break is because of the 80 chars limit but for log
> strings we don't have that limit, unless it is too long (lets say
> 120 chars as thumb of rule, there is no official convention) I think
> better to not break.

Good point, in the past when I was searching some logs and I failed due to the long log line break.

> 
> What do you think remove the whitespace changes out of this commit
> and make another patch to merge the log strings?

Yes I can and will send v2 of this.
Or should I keep the log in a single line @Slava Ovsiienko, what do you think? Any comments?
I remember in the past, my "checkpatch.pl" will report warning against this. Could we ignore this?

BR. Bing

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking
  2020-11-06 14:20   ` Bing Zhao
@ 2020-11-06 17:43     ` Ferruh Yigit
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Ferruh Yigit @ 2020-11-06 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bing Zhao, Slava Ovsiienko, Matan Azrad
  Cc: dev, Ori Kam, Raslan Darawsheh, stable

On 11/6/2020 2:20 PM, Bing Zhao wrote:
> Hi Ferruh,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
>> Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 7:35 PM
>> To: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>; Slava Ovsiienko
>> <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>
>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
>> <rasland@nvidia.com>; stable@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous
>> layer checking
>>
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> On 11/3/2020 5:42 AM, Bing Zhao wrote:
>>> Based on the specification, eCPRI can only follow ETH (VLAN) layer
>> or
>>> UDP layer. When creating a flow with eCPRI item, this should be
>>> checked and invalid layout of the layers should be rejected.
>>>
>>> Fixes: c7eca23657b7 ("net/mlx5: add flow validation of eCPRI
>> header")
>>>
>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
>>> Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>    1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
>>> b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c index a6e60af..11dba3b 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
>>> @@ -2896,17 +2896,23 @@ struct mlx5_flow_tunnel_info {
>>>                                        MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_VLAN);
>>>        struct rte_flow_item_ecpri mask_lo;
>>>
>>> +     if (!(last_item & outer_l2_vlan) &&
>>> +         last_item != MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_UDP)
>>> +             return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>>> +                                       RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
>> item,
>>> +                                       "eCPRI can only follow
>> L2/VLAN layer"
>>> +                                       " or UDP layer.");
>>>        if ((last_item & outer_l2_vlan) && ether_type &&
>>>            ether_type != RTE_ETHER_TYPE_ECPRI)
>>>                return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>>>                                          RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
>> item,
>>> -                                       "eCPRI cannot follow
>> L2/VLAN layer "
>>> -                                       "which ether type is not
>> 0xAEFE.");
>>> +                                       "eCPRI cannot follow
>> L2/VLAN layer"
>>> +                                       " which ether type is not
>>> + 0xAEFE.");
>>>        if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_TUNNEL)
>>>                return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
>>>                                          RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
>> item,
>>> -                                       "eCPRI with tunnel is not
>> supported "
>>> -                                       "right now.");
>>> +                                       "eCPRI with tunnel is not
>> supported"
>>> +                                       " right now.");
>>
>> Why these changes done, it only moves space from end of first line
>> to beginning of the second line?
> 
> Yes, because when I am doing the fix. I found this log part is different from others in the same file and just want to be consistent.
> 
>>
>> Overall I think no need to break the log strings, keeping them
>> intact helps users search the error message in the code.
>> I assume the break is because of the 80 chars limit but for log
>> strings we don't have that limit, unless it is too long (lets say
>> 120 chars as thumb of rule, there is no official convention) I think
>> better to not break.
> 
> Good point, in the past when I was searching some logs and I failed due to the long log line break.
> 
>>
>> What do you think remove the whitespace changes out of this commit
>> and make another patch to merge the log strings?
> 
> Yes I can and will send v2 of this.
> Or should I keep the log in a single line @Slava Ovsiienko, what do you think? Any comments?
> I remember in the past, my "checkpatch.pl" will report warning against this. Could we ignore this?
> 

As far as I know checkpatch is not complaining for the long lines of the string, 
even it does I am OK to ignore it.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking
  2020-11-03  5:42 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking Bing Zhao
  2020-11-05 15:02 ` Raslan Darawsheh
  2020-11-06 11:34 ` Ferruh Yigit
@ 2020-11-11  9:28 ` Bing Zhao
  2020-11-13 18:08   ` Thomas Monjalon
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Bing Zhao @ 2020-11-11  9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: viacheslavo, matan, ferruh.yigit; +Cc: dev, orika, rasland, stable

Based on the specification, eCPRI can only follow ETH (VLAN) layer
or UDP layer. When creating a flow with eCPRI item, this should be
checked and invalid layout of the layers should be rejected.

Fixes: c7eca23657b7 ("net/mlx5: add flow validation of eCPRI header")

Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
---
v2: remove the line break for error log message.
---
 drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
index a6e60af..859b7f6 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow.c
@@ -2896,17 +2896,20 @@ struct mlx5_flow_tunnel_info {
 					MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_VLAN);
 	struct rte_flow_item_ecpri mask_lo;
 
+	if (!(last_item & outer_l2_vlan) &&
+	    last_item != MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_UDP)
+		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
+					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
+					  "eCPRI can only follow L2/VLAN layer or UDP layer");
 	if ((last_item & outer_l2_vlan) && ether_type &&
 	    ether_type != RTE_ETHER_TYPE_ECPRI)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
-					  "eCPRI cannot follow L2/VLAN layer "
-					  "which ether type is not 0xAEFE.");
+					  "eCPRI cannot follow L2/VLAN layer which ether type is not 0xAEFE");
 	if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_TUNNEL)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
-					  "eCPRI with tunnel is not supported "
-					  "right now.");
+					  "eCPRI with tunnel is not supported right now");
 	if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L3)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
@@ -2914,13 +2917,12 @@ struct mlx5_flow_tunnel_info {
 	else if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_TCP)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
-					  "eCPRI cannot follow a TCP layer.");
+					  "eCPRI cannot coexist with a TCP layer");
 	/* In specification, eCPRI could be over UDP layer. */
 	else if (item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_UDP)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM, item,
-					  "eCPRI over UDP layer is not yet "
-					  "supported right now.");
+					  "eCPRI over UDP layer is not yet supported right now");
 	/* Mask for type field in common header could be zero. */
 	if (!mask)
 		mask = &rte_flow_item_ecpri_mask;
@@ -2929,13 +2931,11 @@ struct mlx5_flow_tunnel_info {
 	if (mask_lo.hdr.common.type != 0 && mask_lo.hdr.common.type != 0xff)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM_MASK, mask,
-					  "partial mask is not supported "
-					  "for protocol");
+					  "partial mask is not supported for protocol");
 	else if (mask_lo.hdr.common.type == 0 && mask->hdr.dummy[0] != 0)
 		return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
 					  RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM_MASK, mask,
-					  "message header mask must be after "
-					  "a type mask");
+					  "message header mask must be after a type mask");
 	return mlx5_flow_item_acceptable(item, (const uint8_t *)mask,
 					 acc_mask ? (const uint8_t *)acc_mask
 						  : (const uint8_t *)&nic_mask,
-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking
  2020-11-11  9:28 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Bing Zhao
@ 2020-11-13 18:08   ` Thomas Monjalon
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2020-11-13 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bing Zhao
  Cc: viacheslavo, matan, ferruh.yigit, stable, dev, orika, rasland, asafp

11/11/2020 10:28, Bing Zhao:
> Based on the specification, eCPRI can only follow ETH (VLAN) layer
> or UDP layer. When creating a flow with eCPRI item, this should be
> checked and invalid layout of the layers should be rejected.
> 
> Fixes: c7eca23657b7 ("net/mlx5: add flow validation of eCPRI header")
> 
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bing Zhao <bingz@nvidia.com>
> Acked-by: Viacheslav Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>
> ---
> v2: remove the line break for error log message.

Applied in next-net-mlx instead of the first version, thanks.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2020-11-13 18:08 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-11-03  5:42 [dpdk-stable] [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix eCPRI previous layer checking Bing Zhao
2020-11-05 15:02 ` Raslan Darawsheh
2020-11-06 11:34 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-11-06 14:20   ` Bing Zhao
2020-11-06 17:43     ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-11-11  9:28 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] " Bing Zhao
2020-11-13 18:08   ` Thomas Monjalon

patches for DPDK stable branches

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/stable/0 stable/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 stable stable/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/stable \
		stable@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index stable

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.stable


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git