DPDK usage discussions
 help / color / Atom feed
* [dpdk-users] rte_flow() usage of htonl() for ipv4 addr masks?
@ 2020-08-10  2:03 Arvind Narayanan
  2020-08-10  2:56 ` Cliff Burdick
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Arvind Narayanan @ 2020-08-10  2:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: users

Hi,

In the flow_filtering sample application, the IP's mask was set without
using htonl().
https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/master/examples/flow_filtering/flow_blocks.c#L85

Another DPDK page <https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/rte_flow.html> shows
how a testpmd command is translated to C code.
On this page though, Example 4.2 (Range IPv4 drop) has used htonl() to set
the mask.

Any clarification on how to load the mask would be helpful.

Thanks,
Arvind

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-users] rte_flow() usage of htonl() for ipv4 addr masks?
  2020-08-10  2:03 [dpdk-users] rte_flow() usage of htonl() for ipv4 addr masks? Arvind Narayanan
@ 2020-08-10  2:56 ` Cliff Burdick
  2020-08-10  3:14   ` Arvind Narayanan
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Cliff Burdick @ 2020-08-10  2:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arvind Narayanan; +Cc: users

It should convert to network order, although many applications it won't
matter since they use all F's. If you follow the code in flow_filtering,
indeed it's using:

#define FULL_MASK 0xffffffff /* full mask */

So it won't make any difference. The example should probably be
updated, though..

On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 7:03 PM Arvind Narayanan <webguru2688@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> In the flow_filtering sample application, the IP's mask was set without
> using htonl().
>
> https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/master/examples/flow_filtering/flow_blocks.c#L85
>
> Another DPDK page <https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/rte_flow.html> shows
> how a testpmd command is translated to C code.
> On this page though, Example 4.2 (Range IPv4 drop) has used htonl() to set
> the mask.
>
> Any clarification on how to load the mask would be helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> Arvind
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-users] rte_flow() usage of htonl() for ipv4 addr masks?
  2020-08-10  2:56 ` Cliff Burdick
@ 2020-08-10  3:14   ` Arvind Narayanan
  2020-08-10 15:18     ` Stephen Hemminger
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Arvind Narayanan @ 2020-08-10  3:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Cliff Burdick; +Cc: users

On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 9:56 PM Cliff Burdick <shaklee3@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It should convert to network order, although many applications it won't matter since they use all F's. If you follow the code in flow_filtering, indeed it's using:
>
> #define FULL_MASK 0xffffffff /* full mask */
>
> So it won't make any difference. The example should probably be updated, though..

Thanks Cliff! Yes, when it's all Fs, it doesn't matter.
But I am trying to install rte_flow rules for subnets by parsing a
file which has IPv4 ranges mentioned using CIDR format.

I have it working for say /24 ranges, but as I go to /30 or /29, the
same implementation is not working. I followed the flow classify
example. https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/sample_app_ug/flow_classify.html
as it does the same thing.

```
static uint32_t
convert_depth_to_bitmask(uint32_t depth_val) {
  uint32_t bitmask = 0;
  int i, j;

  for (i = depth_val, j = 0; i > 0; i--, j++)
    bitmask |= (1 << (31 - j));
  return bitmask;
}

ip_mask.hdr.dst_addr = htonl(convert_depth_to_bitmask(29))
```
and https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/master/examples/flow_classify/flow_classify.c#L377-L396
for ipv4 parsing.

I'll keep digging. As always, it seems too trivial to fix as a bug,
but it's been driving me crazy.. haha

- Arvind


>
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 7:03 PM Arvind Narayanan <webguru2688@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the flow_filtering sample application, the IP's mask was set without
>> using htonl().
>> https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/master/examples/flow_filtering/flow_blocks.c#L85
>>
>> Another DPDK page <https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/rte_flow.html> shows
>> how a testpmd command is translated to C code.
>> On this page though, Example 4.2 (Range IPv4 drop) has used htonl() to set
>> the mask.
>>
>> Any clarification on how to load the mask would be helpful.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Arvind

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-users] rte_flow() usage of htonl() for ipv4 addr masks?
  2020-08-10  3:14   ` Arvind Narayanan
@ 2020-08-10 15:18     ` Stephen Hemminger
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Hemminger @ 2020-08-10 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Arvind Narayanan; +Cc: Cliff Burdick, users

On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 22:14:28 -0500
Arvind Narayanan <webguru2688@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 9:56 PM Cliff Burdick <shaklee3@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It should convert to network order, although many applications it won't matter since they use all F's. If you follow the code in flow_filtering, indeed it's using:
> >
> > #define FULL_MASK 0xffffffff /* full mask */
> >
> > So it won't make any difference. The example should probably be updated, though..  
> 
> Thanks Cliff! Yes, when it's all Fs, it doesn't matter.
> But I am trying to install rte_flow rules for subnets by parsing a
> file which has IPv4 ranges mentioned using CIDR format.
> 
> I have it working for say /24 ranges, but as I go to /30 or /29, the
> same implementation is not working. I followed the flow classify
> example. https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/sample_app_ug/flow_classify.html
> as it does the same thing.
> 
> ```
> static uint32_t
> convert_depth_to_bitmask(uint32_t depth_val) {
>   uint32_t bitmask = 0;
>   int i, j;
> 
>   for (i = depth_val, j = 0; i > 0; i--, j++)
>     bitmask |= (1 << (31 - j));
>   return bitmask;
> }
> 
> ip_mask.hdr.dst_addr = htonl(convert_depth_to_bitmask(29))
> ```
> and https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/master/examples/flow_classify/flow_classify.c#L377-L396
> for ipv4 parsing.
> 
> I'll keep digging. As always, it seems too trivial to fix as a bug,
> but it's been driving me crazy.. haha
> 
> - Arvind
> 
> 
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 7:03 PM Arvind Narayanan <webguru2688@gmail.com> wrote:  
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> In the flow_filtering sample application, the IP's mask was set without
> >> using htonl().
> >> https://github.com/DPDK/dpdk/blob/master/examples/flow_filtering/flow_blocks.c#L85
> >>
> >> Another DPDK page <https://doc.dpdk.org/guides/howto/rte_flow.html> shows
> >> how a testpmd command is translated to C code.
> >> On this page though, Example 4.2 (Range IPv4 drop) has used htonl() to set
> >> the mask.
> >>
> >> Any clarification on how to load the mask would be helpful.

In DPDK please use rte_cpu_to_be_32() instead of htonl().

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-08-10  2:03 [dpdk-users] rte_flow() usage of htonl() for ipv4 addr masks? Arvind Narayanan
2020-08-10  2:56 ` Cliff Burdick
2020-08-10  3:14   ` Arvind Narayanan
2020-08-10 15:18     ` Stephen Hemminger

DPDK usage discussions

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/users/0 users/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 users users/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/users \
		users@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index users


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.users


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