From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
To: Gregory Etelson <getelson@nvidia.com>, orika@nvidia.com
Cc: ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com, andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru,
dev@dpdk.org, jerinj@marvell.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com,
thomas@monjalon.net, viacheslavo@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] ethdev: add packet integrity checks
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:36:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <527c07fc-8c12-3e8a-cc3c-f6e345ee1c1f@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210411173414.12568-2-getelson@nvidia.com>
On 4/11/2021 6:34 PM, Gregory Etelson wrote:
> From: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
>
> Currently, DPDK application can offload the checksum check,
> and report it in the mbuf.
>
> However, as more and more applications are offloading some or all
> logic and action to the HW, there is a need to check the packet
> integrity so the right decision can be taken.
>
> The application logic can be positive meaning if the packet is
> valid jump / do actions, or negative if packet is not valid
> jump to SW / do actions (like drop) a, and add default flow
> (match all in low priority) that will direct the miss packet
> to the miss path.
>
> Since currenlty rte_flow works in positive way the assumtion is
> that the postive way will be the common way in this case also.
>
> When thinking what is the best API to implement such feature,
> we need to considure the following (in no specific order):
> 1. API breakage.
> 2. Simplicity.
> 3. Performance.
> 4. HW capabilities.
> 5. rte_flow limitation.
> 6. Flexability.
>
> First option: Add integrity flags to each of the items.
> For example add checksum_ok to ipv4 item.
>
> Pros:
> 1. No new rte_flow item.
> 2. Simple in the way that on each item the app can see
> what checks are available.
>
> Cons:
> 1. API breakage.
> 2. increase number of flows, since app can't add global rule and
> must have dedicated flow for each of the flow combinations, for example
> matching on icmp traffic or UDP/TCP traffic with IPv4 / IPv6 will
> result in 5 flows.
>
> Second option: dedicated item
>
> Pros:
> 1. No API breakage, and there will be no for some time due to having
> extra space. (by using bits)
> 2. Just one flow to support the icmp or UDP/TCP traffic with IPv4 /
> IPv6.
> 3. Simplicity application can just look at one place to see all possible
> checks.
> 4. Allow future support for more tests.
>
> Cons:
> 1. New item, that holds number of fields from different items.
>
> For starter the following bits are suggested:
> 1. packet_ok - means that all HW checks depending on packet layer have
> passed. This may mean that in some HW such flow should be splited to
> number of flows or fail.
> 2. l2_ok - all check flor layer 2 have passed.
> 3. l3_ok - all check flor layer 2 have passed. If packet doens't have
> l3 layer this check shoudl fail.
> 4. l4_ok - all check flor layer 2 have passed. If packet doesn't
> have l4 layer this check should fail.
> 5. l2_crc_ok - the layer 2 crc is O.K. it is possible that the crc will
> be O.K. but the l3_ok will be 0. it is not possible that l2_crc_ok will
> be 0 and the l3_ok will be 0.
> 6. ipv4_csum_ok - IPv4 checksum is O.K.
> 7. l4_csum_ok - layer 4 checksum is O.K.
> 8. l3_len_OK - check that the reported layer 3 len is smaller than the
> packet len.
>
> Example of usage:
> 1. check packets from all possible layers for integrity.
> flow create integrity spec packet_ok = 1 mask packet_ok = 1 .....
>
> 2. Check only packet with layer 4 (UDP / TCP)
> flow create integrity spec l3_ok = 1, l4_ok = 1 mask l3_ok = 1 l4_ok = 1
>
Hi Ori,
Is the intention of the API just filtering, like apply some action to the
packets based on their integration status. Like drop packets their l2_crc
checksum failed? Here configuration is done by existing offload APIs.
Or is the intention to configure the integration check on NIC, like to say
enable layer 2 checks, and do the action based on integration check status.
> Signed-off-by: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
> ---
> v2: fix compilation error
> ---
> doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 19 ++++++++++++
> lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> index e1b93ecedf..87ef591405 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> @@ -1398,6 +1398,25 @@ Matches a eCPRI header.
> - ``hdr``: eCPRI header definition (``rte_ecpri.h``).
> - Default ``mask`` matches nothing, for all eCPRI messages.
>
> +Item: ``PACKET_INTEGRITY_CHECKS``
> +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> +
> +Matches packet integrity.
> +
> +- ``level``: the encapsulation level that should be checked. level 0 means the
> + default PMD mode (Can be inner most / outermost). value of 1 means outermost
> + and higher value means inner header. See also RSS level.
> +- ``packet_ok``: All HW packet integrity checks have passed based on the max
> + layer of the packet.
> + layer of the packet.
> +- ``l2_ok``: all layer 2 HW integrity checks passed.
> +- ``l3_ok``: all layer 3 HW integrity checks passed.
> +- ``l4_ok``: all layer 3 HW integrity checks passed.
s/layer 3/ layer 4/
> +- ``l2_crc_ok``: layer 2 crc check passed.
> +- ``ipv4_csum_ok``: ipv4 checksum check passed.
> +- ``l4_csum_ok``: layer 4 checksum check passed.
> +- ``l3_len_ok``: the layer 3 len is smaller than the packet len.
> +
> Actions
> ~~~~~~~
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> index 6cc57136ac..77471af2c4 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> @@ -551,6 +551,15 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type {
> * See struct rte_flow_item_geneve_opt
> */
> RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_GENEVE_OPT,
> +
> + /**
> + * [META]
> + *
> + * Matches on packet integrity.
> + *
> + * See struct rte_flow_item_integrity.
> + */
> + RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_INTEGRITY,
> };
>
> /**
> @@ -1685,6 +1694,44 @@ rte_flow_item_geneve_opt_mask = {
> };
> #endif
>
> +__extension__
> +struct rte_flow_item_integrity {
> + uint32_t level;
> + /**< Packet encapsulation level the item should apply to.
> + * @see rte_flow_action_rss
> + */
> + union {
> + struct {
> + uint64_t packet_ok:1;
> + /** The packet is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> + uint64_t l2_ok:1;
> + /**< L2 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> + uint64_t l3_ok:1;
> + /**< L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> + uint64_t l4_ok:1;
> + /**< L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> + uint64_t l2_crc_ok:1;
> + /**< L2 layer checksum is valid. */
> + uint64_t ipv4_csum_ok:1;
> + /**< L3 layer checksum is valid. */
> + uint64_t l4_csum_ok:1;
> + /**< L4 layer checksum is valid. */
> + uint64_t l3_len_ok:1;
> + /**< The l3 len is smaller than the packet len. */
packet len?
> + uint64_t reserved:56;
> + };
> + uint64_t value;
> + };
> +};
> +
> +#ifndef __cplusplus
> +static const struct rte_flow_item_integrity
> +rte_flow_item_integrity_mask = {
> + .level = 0,
> + .value = 0,
> +};
> +#endif
> +
> /**
> * Matching pattern item definition.
> *
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-12 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-05 18:04 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] " Ori Kam
2021-04-06 7:39 ` Jerin Jacob
2021-04-07 10:32 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-07 11:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2021-04-07 22:15 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-08 7:44 ` Jerin Jacob
2021-04-11 4:12 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-11 6:03 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-13 15:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-13 15:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-13 15:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-13 17:15 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-14 12:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/2] add packet integrity checks Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 12:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 13:27 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-14 13:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-14 12:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 16:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] add packet integrity checks Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 16:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 17:24 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-15 15:10 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-15 15:25 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-15 16:46 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-16 7:43 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-18 8:15 ` Gregory Etelson
2021-04-18 18:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-14 16:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 16:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] add packet integrity checks Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-18 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-18 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-18 18:11 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-18 19:24 ` Gregory Etelson
2021-04-18 21:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-18 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 8:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/2] add packet integrity checks Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 8:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 8:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-19 8:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 11:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/2] add packet integrity checks Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-19 12:08 ` Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 12:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 12:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 14:09 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-19 16:34 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-19 17:06 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-19 12:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 14:09 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-08 8:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add packet integrity checks Andrew Rybchenko
2021-04-08 11:39 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-09 8:08 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-04-11 6:42 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-11 17:30 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-11 17:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-11 17:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-12 17:36 ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2021-04-12 19:26 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-13 7:12 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-13 8:03 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-13 8:18 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-13 8:30 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-13 10:21 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-13 17:28 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-11 17:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-12 17:49 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-13 7:53 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-13 8:14 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-13 11:36 ` 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=527c07fc-8c12-3e8a-cc3c-f6e345ee1c1f@intel.com \
--to=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=getelson@nvidia.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=orika@nvidia.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--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).