From: "Varghese, Vipin" <vipin.varghese@intel.com>
To: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"pascal.mazon@6wind.com" <pascal.mazon@6wind.com>,
"Yigit, Ferruh" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Olga Shern <olgas@mellanox.com>,
Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/tap: add tun support
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:09:53 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D1DFD5A@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0501MB2314F70FFE2CFE1F9992F784D1B40@HE1PR0501MB2314.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Ophir,
<Snip>
> Hi Vipin,
> I missed your point:
> You claim that TAP should work regardless of any pi.proto values.
> Can you confirm that for ALL kernels versions (past and future)?
I have tested with 3.13.0 , 4.4.0 with patch fix.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ophir Munk
> > Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2018 12:49 AM
> > To: Varghese, Vipin <vipin.varghese@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > pascal.mazon@6wind.com; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Thomas
> > Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Olga Shern <olgas@mellanox.com>;
> > Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/tap: add tun support
> >
> > Hi Vipin,
> >
> > Please find comments inline.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Varghese, Vipin [mailto:vipin.varghese@intel.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 6:18 AM
> > > To: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> > > pascal.mazon@6wind.com; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>;
> > > Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Olga Shern
> > > <olgas@mellanox.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/tap: add tun support
> > >
<Snip>
> > > > 1. Accessing the first byte here assumes it is the first IP header
> > > > byte (layer 3) which is correct for TUN.
> > > > For TAP however the first byte belongs to Ethernet destination
> > > > address (layer 2).
> > > > Please explain how this logic will work for TAP.
> > >
> > > Based on linux code base '/driver/net/tap.c' and '/driver/net/tun.c'
> > > from 3.13. to 4.16,
> > >
> > > Please find my observation below
> > > 1. File: tun.c, function: tun_get_user, check for 'tun->flags &
> > > TUN_TYPE_MASK' is done and if non ip is taken counter 'rx_dropped'
> > > is updated.
> > > 2. File: tap.c, there are no checks for 'tap->flags' for IFF_NO_PI
> > > in rx data path. Counter 'rx_dropped' is updated in 'tap_handle_frame'.
> > >
> >
> > I understand that in kernel implementation there is no check for
> > tap->flags in file tap.c, however I think there is a bug in dpdk rte_eth_tap.c
> file.
> > Please find below an example which demonstrates this claim.
> >
> > > Please find my reasoning below
> > > 1. First approach was to have separate function for tap and tun TX and RX.
> > > But this will introduce code duplication, hence reworked the code as
> > above.
> >
> > I agree. Avoiding code duplication is a good approach.
> >
> > > 2. During my internal testing assigning dummy value for protocol
> > > field in TAP packets, did not show a difference in behaviour. May be
> > > there are some specific cases this failing.
> > >
> > > If there difference in behaviour, can please share the same?
> > >
> >
> > Please consider the following example:
> > I am running testpmd with a TAP device, --forward-mode=csum.
> > I am injecting a TCP packet, which is forwarded back (mac addresses
> > swapped) to the sender.
> > Using gdb I set a breakpoint at pmd_tx_burst() in file rte_eth_tap.c
> >
> > Looking at the following code inside pmd_tx_burst():
> >
> > 527 char *buff_data = rte_pktmbuf_mtod(seg, void *);
> > 528 j = (*buff_data & 0xf0);
> > 529 pi.proto = (j == 0x40) ? 0x0008 :
> > 530 (j == 0x60) ? 0xdd86 : 0x00;
> >
> > I am printing the first 20 bytes of buff_data in line 527:
> >
> > (gdb) p/x *(unsigned char *)buff_data@20
> > $3 = {0x0, 0x25, 0x88, 0x10, 0x66, 0x2, 0xf4, 0x52, 0x14, 0x7a, 0x59,
> > 0x81, 0x8, 0x0, 0x45, 0x0, 0x4, 0xdf, 0x0, 0x1}
> >
> > The gdb printout refers to:
> > 6 bytes of destination MAC address: 0x0, 0x25, 0x88, 0x10, 0x66, 0x2
> > 6 bytes of source MAC address: 0xf4, 0x52, 0x14, 0x7a, 0x59, 0x81
> > 2 bytes of Ethernet type: 0x8, 0x0 - (IPv4) IP header starting with 0x45, ...
> > which is the byte (0x45) that "j" should have looked at
> >
> > In the case of TAP - buff_data starts with the destination MAC address
> > of the sender (0x0, ...).
> > The code in line 528 expects that buff_data would start with an IP
> > header protocol (e.g. 0x45), but it is not the case for TAP.
> > In my case j=0x0 (line 528) which is harmless (as it ends up with
> > setting pi.proto=0x00, which is correct for TAP).
> > However, if the sender had an Intel NIC - the destination MAC address
> > could have started with:
> > $3 = {0x40, 0x25, 0xC2, ...
> > Or-
> > $3 = {0x64, 0xD4, 0xDA, ...
> >
> > as 4025C2 and 64D4DA are reserved prefixes for Intel Ethernet MAC
> > addresses, see: http://www.coffer.com/mac_find/?string=intel
> >
> > In this case pi.proto could end up with 0x0008 or 0xdd86 instead of
> > 0x0 as expected for TAP.
> >
> > I hope that this example clarifies the bug I am referring to.
> >
Thanks for sharing detailed example overview. But as you mentioned this will break ' 4025C2' and ' 64D4DA',
This will not solve for the correction patch ' https://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/37986/'.
Only choice left is separate tx_burst for TAP and TUN PMD, as we do not want to check PMD type on each call.
Questions:
1) Is this ok to split tx_burst and have redundant code?
2) Does applications transparently send packets coming from Physical NIC to TAP interface? Does not the application
Modifies the DEST MAC addr to TAP interface?
> > > >
> > > > 2. If the first TUN byte contains 0x2X (which is neither IPv4 nor
> > > > IPv6) it will end up by setting ip.proto as 0xdd86.
> > > > Please explain how this logic will work for non-IP packets in TUN
> > >
> > > I see your point. You are correct about this. Thanks for pointing
> > > out, may I send correction for this as
> > >
> > > """
> > > - if (j & (0x40 | 0x60))
> > > - pi.proto = (j == 0x40) ? 0x0008 : 0xdd86;
> > > + pi.proto = (j == 0x40) ? 0x0008 :
> > > + (j == 0x60) ? 0xdd86 :
> > > + 0x00;
> > > """
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-21 15:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-20 23:12 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] " Vipin Varghese
2018-02-22 12:22 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-dev,v1] " Pascal Mazon
2018-02-26 11:01 ` Varghese, Vipin
2018-02-26 6:15 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Vipin Varghese
2018-02-27 13:06 ` Pascal Mazon
2018-04-02 21:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] " Vipin Varghese
2018-04-02 21:37 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/tap: add tun log and documnetation Vipin Varghese
2018-04-03 8:27 ` Pascal Mazon
2018-04-03 10:05 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-03 10:53 ` Pascal Mazon
2018-04-03 10:05 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-06 17:11 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/tap: add tun support Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-06 17:19 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-04-12 11:49 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-13 3:18 ` Varghese, Vipin
2018-04-20 21:49 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-20 21:58 ` Ophir Munk
2018-04-21 15:09 ` Varghese, Vipin [this message]
2018-04-23 12:58 ` Varghese, Vipin
2018-04-23 15:42 ` Ferruh Yigit
2018-05-03 5:59 ` Varghese, Vipin
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=4C9E0AB70F954A408CC4ADDBF0F8FA7D4D1DFD5A@BGSMSX101.gar.corp.intel.com \
--to=vipin.varghese@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=olgas@mellanox.com \
--cc=ophirmu@mellanox.com \
--cc=pascal.mazon@6wind.com \
--cc=shahafs@mellanox.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).