Re: [dpdk-stable] app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API

["Zhang, Xiao" <xiao.zhang@intel.com>]

Hi Ori,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 6:19 PM
> To: Zhang, Xiao <xiao.zhang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Wang, Ying A <ying.a.wang@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API
> 
> Hi Xiao,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Zhang, Xiao <xiao.zhang@intel.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 12:06 PM
> > To: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Wang, Ying A <ying.a.wang@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> > <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>;
> > stable@dpdk.org
> > Subject: RE: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API
> >
> > Hi Ori,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2020 2:28 PM
> > > To: Zhang, Xiao <xiao.zhang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Wang, Ying A <ying.a.wang@intel.com>; Zhang, Qi Z
> > > <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>; Zhao1, Wei <wei.zhao1@intel.com>;
> > stable@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: RE: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API
> > >
> > > Hi Xiao,
> > >
> > > Is the proto_id part of the basic header or not?
> >
> > Proto_id is part of PPPOE session header,
> >
> 
> Where is the porto_id located? Inside the payload?

Yes, my previous explanation was not clear. The protocol ID is in the beginning of the payload in PPP Session Stage according to RFC2516.

                     	         1                                  2                                3
   0 1 2  3  4  5 6 7 8 9 0 1  2 3 4  5 6 7 8 9  0 1 2 3  4  5 6 7 8 9 0 1
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |  VER   | TYPE   |      CODE      |                  SESSION_ID                    |
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
 |                 LENGTH                    |                      payload                      ~
 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

> 
> > >
> > > From the spec it looks like a different header.
> > >
> > > If it is part of the original header then all documentations and
> > > rte_structs
> > should
> > > be changed, to reflect this.
> > >
> > > It will be very helpful if the patch message would explain the bug
> > > and why it
> > was
> > > changed.
> >
> > Okay, will add more message. The next value of the ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID
> > should be unsigned value but not item list.
> >
> > >
> > > Also please see inline other comment.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Ori
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Xiao Zhang <xiao.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 11:19 AM
> > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Cc: Ori Kam <orika@mellanox.com>; ying.a.wang@intel.com;
> > > > qi.z.zhang@intel.com; wei.zhao1@intel.com; Xiao Zhang
> > > > <xiao.zhang@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: app/testpmd: fix PPPOES flow API
> > > >
> > > > The command line to create RTE flow for specific proto_id of
> > > > PPPOES is not correct. This patch is to fix this issue.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 226c6e60c35b ("ethdev: add PPPoE to flow API")
> > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Zhang <xiao.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 13 +++----------
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > > > b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c index a78154502..c25a2598d 100644
> > > > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > > > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > > > @@ -768,7 +768,6 @@ static const enum index next_item[] = {
> > > >  	ITEM_GTP_PSC,
> > > >  	ITEM_PPPOES,
> > > >  	ITEM_PPPOED,
> > > > -	ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID,
> > > >  	ITEM_HIGIG2,
> > > >  	ITEM_TAG,
> > > >  	ITEM_L2TPV3OIP,
> > > > @@ -1030,11 +1029,6 @@ static const enum index item_pppoed[] = {
> > > >
> > > >  static const enum index item_pppoes[] = {
> > > >  	ITEM_PPPOE_SEID,
> > > > -	ITEM_NEXT,
> > > > -	ZERO,
> > > > -};
> > > > -
> > > > -static const enum index item_pppoe_proto_id[] = {
> > > >  	ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID,
> > > >  	ITEM_NEXT,
> > > >  	ZERO,
> > > > @@ -2643,10 +2637,9 @@ static const struct token token_list[] = {
> > > >  	[ITEM_PPPOE_PROTO_ID] = {
> > > >  		.name = "proto_id",
> > > >  		.help = "match PPPoE session protocol identifier",
> > > > -		.priv = PRIV_ITEM(PPPOE_PROTO_ID,
> > > > -				sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id)),
> > > > -		.next = NEXT(item_pppoe_proto_id),
> > > > -		.call = parse_vc,
> > > > +		.next = NEXT(item_pppoes, NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED),
> > > > item_param),
> > > > +		.args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY_HTON
> > > > +			     (struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id, proto_id)),
> > >
> > > Where is the memory for this proto_id is defined?
> >
> > Do you mean this?
> > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > 1360 struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id {
> > 1361         rte_be16_t proto_id; /**< PPP protocol identifier. */
> > 1362 };
> >
> 
> Yes. Why don't you use this one?

I think I was using this, am I using it incorrectly?

+		.args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY_HTON
+			     (struct rte_flow_item_pppoe_proto_id, proto_id)),

> 
> > >
> > > >  	},
> > > >  	[ITEM_HIGIG2] = {
> > > >  		.name = "higig2",
> > > > --
> > > > 2.17.1