From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
Cc: viacheslavo@nvidia.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com,
Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
dev@dpdk.org, ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com, jerinj@marvell.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: add sanity packet checks
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2021 21:14:16 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1769565.OWqOAu9aEJ@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1614541699-99345-1-git-send-email-orika@nvidia.com>
28/02/2021 20:48, Ori Kam:
> Currently, DPDK application can offload the checksum check,
> and report it in the mbuf.
>
> However, this approach doesn't work if the traffic
> is offloaded and should not arrive to the application.
>
> This commit introduces rte flow item that enables
s/rte flow/rte_flow/
> matching on the checksum of the L3 and L4 layers,
> in addition to other checks that can determine if
> the packet is valid.
> some of those tests can be packet len, data len,
> unsupported flags, and so on.
>
> The full check is HW dependent.
What is the "full check"?
How much it is HW dependent?
> + * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_SANITY_CHECKS
> + *
> + * Enable matching on packet validity based on HW checks for the L3 and L4
> + * layers.
> + */
> +struct rte_flow_item_sanity_checks {
> + uint32_t level;
> + /**< Packet encapsulation level the item should apply to.
> + * @see rte_flow_action_rss
> + */
> +RTE_STD_C11
> + union {
> + struct {
Why there is no L2 check?
> + uint32_t l3_ok:1;
> + /**< L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checking. */
> + uint32_t l4_ok:1;
> + /**< L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checking. */
l3_ok and l4_ok looks vague.
What does it cover exactly?
> + uint32_t l3_ok_csum:1;
> + /**< L3 layer checksum is valid. */
> + uint32_t l4_ok_csum:1;
> + /**< L4 layer checksum is valid. */
> + uint32_t reserved:28;
> + };
> + uint32_t value;
> + };
> +};
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-28 20:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-28 19:48 Ori Kam
2021-02-28 20:14 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2021-03-04 10:00 ` Ori Kam
2021-03-04 10:46 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-03-07 18:46 ` Ori Kam
2021-03-08 23:05 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-03-09 19:21 ` Ori Kam
2021-03-09 9:01 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-03-09 9:11 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-03-09 15:08 ` Ori Kam
2021-03-09 15:27 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-03-09 19:46 ` Ori Kam
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1769565.OWqOAu9aEJ@thomas \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=orika@nvidia.com \
--cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).