* [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).