From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
Cc: Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
"ferruh.yigit@intel.com" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com" <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
"jerinj@marvell.com" <jerinj@marvell.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: add sanity packet checks
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2021 11:46:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7146547.nIQmEXas8S@thomas> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR12MB4987F6384627FDEF6800F76ED6979@DM6PR12MB4987.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
04/03/2021 11:00, Ori Kam:
> From: Thomas Monjalon
> > 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/
> >
>
> Sure
>
> > > 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?
> >
>
> This also relates to your other comments,
> Each HW may run different set of checks on the packet,
> for example one PMD can just check the tcp flags while
> a different PMD will also check the option.
I'm not sure how an application can rely on
such a vague definition.
> > > + * 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?
> >
> Our HW doesn't support it.
> If other HW support it, it should be added.
It would be an ABI breakage. Can we add it day one?
> > > + 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?
> >
> It depends on the HW in question.
> In our case it checks in case of L3
> the header len, and the version.
> For L4 checking the len.
If we don't know exactly what is checked,
how an application can rely on it?
Is it a best effort check? What is the use case?
> > > + uint32_t l3_ok_csum:1;
> > > + /**< L3 layer checksum is valid. */
> > > + uint32_t l4_ok_csum:1;
> > > + /**< L4 layer checksum is valid. */
What worries me is that the checksum is separate but other checks
are in a common bucket.
I think we should have one field per precise check
with a way to report what is checked.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-04 10:46 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
2021-03-04 10:00 ` Ori Kam
2021-03-04 10:46 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
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=7146547.nIQmEXas8S@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).