* [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, other threads:[~2020-08-10 15:19 UTC | newest] 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
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).