RE: Does ACL support field size of 8 bytes?

[Ido Goshen <Ido@cgstowernetworks.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 April 2022 20:57
> To: Ido Goshen <Ido@cgstowernetworks.com>; users@dpdk.org;
> dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.v.ananyev@yandex.ru>
> Subject: RE: Does ACL support field size of 8 bytes?
> 
> 
> Hi Ido,
> 
> > I've lots of good experience with ACL but can't make it work with u64
> > values I know it can be split to 2xu32 fields, but it makes it more
> > complex to use and a wastes double  number of fields (we hit the
> > RTE_ACL_MAX_FIELDS 64 limit)
> 
> Wow, that's a lot of fields...

[idog] 
We provide a general purpose packet-broker that covers wide range of 
l2-l4 protocols + tunnels + some app level metadata. 
Though in most cases they won't be used simultaneously and many fields 
may end up being don't-care (e.g. mask=0) it's easier to code a static 
rte_acl_field_def struct that covers all the options then constructing it 
dynamically on each user configuration change
 
> > According to the documentation and rte_acl.h fields size can be 8[idog] 
> > ...
> > Should it work?
> > Did anyone try it successfully and/or can share an example?
> 
> You are right: though it is formally supported, we do not test it, and AFAIK no-
> one used it till now.
> As we do group fields by 4B long chunks anyway, 8B field is sort of awkward and
> confusing.
> To be honest, I don't even remember what was the rationale beyond introducing
> it at first place.
> Anyway, just submitted patches that should fix 8B field support (at least it works
> for me now):
> https://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=22676
> Please give it a try.

[idog] The patch works great for me. Thanx!

> In long term it probably would be good to hear from you and other users, should
> we keep 8B support at all, or might be it would be easier just to abandon it.
> Thanks
> Konstantin

[idog] I find the 8B option very useful:
1. It's easier and more natural to use for long size fields
e.g. part of how it simplifies our MAC rules code

@@ -231,48 +231,34 @@ struct rte_acl_field_def acl_fields[] = {
                {
                                .type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_BITMASK,
-                               .size = sizeof(uint32_t),
-                               .field_index = FIELD_MAC_SRC_4MSB,
+                               .size = sizeof(uint64_t),
+                               .field_index = FIELD_MAC_SRC,
                                .input_index = INPUT_INDEX_GROUP_2,
                                .offset = offsetof(struct acl_data, mac_src),
                },
-              {
-                                .type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_BITMASK,
-                               .size = sizeof(uint16_t),
-                               .field_index = FIELD_MAC_SRC_2LSB,
-                               .input_index = INPUT_INDEX_GROUP_3,
-                               .offset = offsetof(struct acl_data, mac_src) + sizeof(uint32_t),
-               },
.
.
.
+static int get_mac_val(const char *in, uint64_t *mac)
 {
-       static const size_t MAC_4MSB_SIZE = sizeof(uint32_t);
-       static const size_t MAC_2LSB_SIZE = sizeof(uint16_t);
        uint32_t i = 0;
        uint8_t octet = 0;
        char dlm = ':';
-
-       for (i = 0; i < MAC_4MSB_SIZE; i++)
-       {
-               GET_CB_FIELD(in, octet, 16, UINT8_MAX, dlm);
-               ((uint8_t*)mac4msb)[MAC_4MSB_SIZE - 1 - i] = octet;
-       }
-       for (i = 0; i < MAC_2LSB_SIZE; i++)
+       *mac = 0;
+       for (i = 0; i < RTE_ETHER_ADDR_LEN; i++)
        {
-               if (i ==  MAC_2LSB_SIZE - 1)
+               if (i == RTE_ETHER_ADDR_LEN - 1)
                        dlm = 0;
                GET_CB_FIELD(in, octet, 16, UINT8_MAX, dlm);
-               ((uint8_t*)mac2lsb)[MAC_2LSB_SIZE - 1 - i] = octet;
+               ((uint8_t*)mac)[RTE_ETHER_ADDR_LEN + 1 - i] = octet;
        }
        return 0;
 }

It' even much more significant for RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE that may require
breaking a single U64 range to 3 U32 based rules

2. It may save acl fields
Alternative is to increase RTE_ACL_MAX_FIELDS (maybe expose it to rte_config.h)
As long as the "64" doesn't stand for some algorithmic/performance reason