Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check in front to jump over ntuple filter case

["Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>]

OK, got your point. We should not reject a possible valid fdir flow at n-tuple flow check stage.

Review-by: Qi Zhang <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>

Thanks
Qi

From: mocan [mailto:faicker.mo@ucloud.cn] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 4:16 PM
To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zhang@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re:RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check in front to jump over ntuple filter case

Hi Qi,
In ixgbe_flow_create function, ntuple filter is parsed first. 
If the flow is considered to be ntuple filter, it will not go on to judge ethertype filter, syn filter and fdir filter.
In the function ntuple_filter_to_5tuple, 5 tuple info is checked, but it's too late to jump over the ntuple filter if it's a fdir filter.






At 2018-09-21 23:48:37, "Zhang, Qi Z" <qi.z.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
>Hi Faicker:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of faicker.mo
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 1:49 PM
>> To: dev@dpdk.org
>> Cc: faicker.mo <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net/ixgbe: put 5tuple check in front to jump over
>> ntuple filter case
>> 
>> From: "faicker.mo" <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
>> 
>> Check in func ntuple_filter_to_5tuple is too late for fdir filter rule, add check
>> in func cons_parse_ntuple_filter.
>
>Would you explain more about the intention for this patch?
>Though it can be more fast to reject an invalid flow, but why it is too late in your case? 
>
>Thanks
>Qi
>
>
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: faicker.mo <faicker.mo@ucloud.cn>
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c
>> index 1adf1b8..f0fafeb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ixgbe/ixgbe_flow.c
>> @@ -363,6 +363,17 @@ const struct rte_flow_action *next_no_void_action(
>>  				item, "Not supported by ntuple filter");
>>  			return -rte_errno;
>>  		}
>> +		if ((ipv4_mask->hdr.src_addr != 0 &&
>> +			ipv4_mask->hdr.src_addr != UINT32_MAX) ||
>> +			(ipv4_mask->hdr.dst_addr != 0 &&
>> +			ipv4_mask->hdr.dst_addr != UINT32_MAX) ||
>> +			(ipv4_mask->hdr.next_proto_id != UINT8_MAX &&
>> +			ipv4_mask->hdr.next_proto_id != 0)) {
>> +			rte_flow_error_set(error,
>> +				EINVAL, RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
>> +				item, "Not supported by ntuple filter");
>> +			return -rte_errno;
>> +		}
>> 
>>  		filter->dst_ip_mask = ipv4_mask->hdr.dst_addr;
>>  		filter->src_ip_mask = ipv4_mask->hdr.src_addr; @@ -432,6 +443,15
>> @@ const struct rte_flow_action *next_no_void_action(
>>  				item, "Not supported by ntuple filter");
>>  			return -rte_errno;
>>  		}
>> +		if ((tcp_mask->hdr.src_port != 0 &&
>> +			tcp_mask->hdr.src_port != UINT16_MAX) ||
>> +			(tcp_mask->hdr.dst_port != 0 &&
>> +			tcp_mask->hdr.dst_port != UINT16_MAX)) {
>> +			rte_flow_error_set(error,
>> +				EINVAL, RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
>> +				item, "Not supported by ntuple filter");
>> +			return -rte_errno;
>> +		}
>> 
>>  		filter->dst_port_mask  = tcp_mask->hdr.dst_port;
>>  		filter->src_port_mask  = tcp_mask->hdr.src_port; @@ -467,6
>> +487,15 @@ const struct rte_flow_action *next_no_void_action(
>>  				item, "Not supported by ntuple filter");
>>  			return -rte_errno;
>>  		}
>> +		if ((udp_mask->hdr.src_port != 0 &&
>> +			udp_mask->hdr.src_port != UINT16_MAX) ||
>> +			(udp_mask->hdr.dst_port != 0 &&
>> +			udp_mask->hdr.dst_port != UINT16_MAX)) {
>> +			rte_flow_error_set(error,
>> +				EINVAL, RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ITEM,
>> +				item, "Not supported by ntuple filter");
>> +			return -rte_errno;
>> +		}
>> 
>>  		filter->dst_port_mask = udp_mask->hdr.dst_port;
>>  		filter->src_port_mask = udp_mask->hdr.src_port;
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
>> 
>