From: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>
To: Nelio Laranjeiro <nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com>
Cc: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>,
Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
dev@dpdk.org,
Narayana Prasad <narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com>,
Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 20:34:04 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <333ed41b-37c5-db51-45d2-7eabac483d96@caviumnetworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171130122800.2cotiud5rdcaqzkm@laranjeiro-vm.dev.6wind.com>
Hi Nelio,
On 30-11-2017 17:58, Nelio Laranjeiro wrote:
> Hi Annob,
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:16:23PM +0530, Anoob wrote:
>> On 11/29/2017 06:20 PM, Nelio Laranjeiro wrote:
>>> Hi Anoob,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 06:00:38PM +0530, Anoob wrote:
>>>> Hi Nelio,
>>>>
>>>> Since support of RSS with inline crypto/protocol is hardware
>>>> implementation dependent, it would be better if there is some sort of
>>>> capability check before setting the flow parameters in the application.
>>>>
>>>> If the hardware doesn't support RSS with inline processing, then the RSS
>>>> flow action will have to be ignored in the driver. This wouldn't look
>>>> right from application's point of view. And also the PMD would need
>>>> application-specific logic to handle such cases, which may not scale well.
>>> There is a real issue here, RTE_FLOW API needs a terminal action, security is
>>> not one [1] you must have one of the followings: QUEUE, DROP, RSS, PF,
>>> VF or PASSTHRU.
>>>
>>> Flow API does not work with "capabilities" as the application can verify
>>> the rule using the validate(). If it cannot be validated the
>>> application can test another kind of rule until the PMD returns a
>>> success.
>>>
>>> Here, I am proposing the RSS as RSS with a single queue is equivalent to queue.
>>>
>>> On Mellanox NIC we need the RSS or QUEUE in ingress and for Egress PASSTHRU
>>> is good.
>>>
>>> What are your needs?
>> Thanks for the clarification. Understood the issue here. On Cavium hardware
>> SECURITY will be terminating.
> You should finalise with PASSTHRU to be compliant with the API,
> otherwise application makers won't understand why it does not work
> according to the API implementation.
Cavium hardware would be supporting only terminating actions. So
PASSTHRU will not be supported.
>> So a better approach would be to first check from the application
>> (using rte_flow_verify()) if SECURITY is terminating action. If it
>> fails, then application can do RSS/QUEUE. That should solve
>> the issue.
> <snip>
>
> I think we have an agreement here, in order the final action to be
> tested:
>
> 1. PASSTHRU
> 2. RSS
> 3. QUEUE
>
> If those 3 fails, the functions fails to create the rule, the first
> succeeding is the one applied.
PASSTHRU itself is non-terminating, right? So I'm not sure, how a check
with PASSTHRU would help us. SECURITY will be terminating action on
Cavium hardware. So, the first check could be without any addition. If
that fails, RSS. And then QUEUE. That should be fine.
Any thoughts?
Anoob
>
> Do you agree?
>
> Thanks,
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-01 15:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-23 15:12 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix missing ingress flow attribute Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-23 15:12 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-29 12:30 ` Anoob
2017-11-29 12:50 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-11-30 10:46 ` Anoob
2017-11-30 12:28 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-01 15:04 ` Anoob Joseph [this message]
2017-12-01 16:26 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-04 14:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix missing ingress flow attribute Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-11 11:50 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-12-04 14:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-07 9:47 ` Anoob
2017-12-07 12:22 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-08 14:00 ` Anoob
2017-12-08 14:40 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-08 16:40 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-11 8:21 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-11 9:00 ` Anoob
2017-12-11 14:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix missing ingress flow attribute Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-12 7:14 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-11 14:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-12 12:43 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-12 13:44 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-12 14:04 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-12 14:38 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-13 6:41 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-13 10:02 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-13 11:38 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-13 12:53 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-13 13:53 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-13 14:47 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-20 16:19 ` Boris Pismenny
2017-12-21 8:06 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-21 10:12 ` Boris Pismenny
2017-12-21 14:22 ` Adrien Mazarguil
2018-01-05 6:18 ` Anoob Joseph
2018-01-09 12:48 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2018-01-10 6:21 ` Anoob Joseph
2018-01-05 5:52 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-14 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix missing ingress flow attribute Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-14 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-18 8:23 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18 9:57 ` Nélio Laranjeiro
2017-12-14 15:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: add Egress " Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-15 9:05 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 13:53 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-15 15:39 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-15 16:53 ` Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-15 17:01 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18 10:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix missing ingress flow attribute Nelio Laranjeiro
2018-01-18 14:50 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2017-12-18 10:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions Nelio Laranjeiro
2017-12-19 6:22 ` Anoob Joseph
2017-12-18 10:24 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] examples/ipsec-secgw: add Egress " Nelio Laranjeiro
2018-01-08 16:13 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
2018-01-16 16:12 ` Nicolau, Radu
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=333ed41b-37c5-db51-45d2-7eabac483d96@caviumnetworks.com \
--to=anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=nelio.laranjeiro@6wind.com \
--cc=radu.nicolau@intel.com \
--cc=sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.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).