From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA51A04DD; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:23:07 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85894C8F6; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:14:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com [148.163.129.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B50C800 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:14:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.7.65.60]) by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 10A8260062 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:14:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from us4-mdac16-69.ut7.mdlocal (unknown [10.7.64.188]) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1098B2009A for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:14:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Proofpoint Essentials engine Received: from mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.7.66.41]) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 8E2511C0052 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from webmail.solarflare.com (uk.solarflare.com [193.34.186.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id 42C6A4C0060 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:14:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) by ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:13:59 +0100 Received: from opal.uk.solarflarecom.com (10.17.10.1) by ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:13:59 +0100 Received: from ukv-loginhost.uk.solarflarecom.com (ukv-loginhost.uk.solarflarecom.com [10.17.10.39]) by opal.uk.solarflarecom.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 09K9Dxq5028365; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:13:59 +0100 Received: from ukv-loginhost.uk.solarflarecom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ukv-loginhost.uk.solarflarecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82DDB1613A9; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:13:59 +0100 (BST) From: Andrew Rybchenko To: CC: Ivan Malov Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:12:53 +0100 Message-ID: <1603185222-14831-14-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 1.8.3.1 In-Reply-To: <1603185222-14831-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> References: <1603183709-23420-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> <1603185222-14831-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.6.1012-25736.003 X-TM-AS-Result: No-1.558600-8.000000-10 X-TMASE-MatchedRID: Fq9/SvL6Kz48h5fiCCMPpCfa1HFVDArQqLKYlTwO0TVV1lQ/Hn0TOo10 Z1sGBhM6FA1eIuuV70Xm6gCNYEXf0if9wxvvYmtJsFkCLeeufNtMhH/KpYxyu3CR0itW3xfVyJN a6DYLgM0003R2T+VvjnDlPghqPnfyYlldA0POS1L/V0SDC1Do0KNeL/tbjwkH0qkUgB4fU1D9cw QgLdEm+bEwnnFnQnmn/X61PWt0t3wI9OW4GjlDnomR/mpCAiHdAzwceAn9JLO6pZ/o2Hu2YaHD1 a7PvZdlwA+RVu6JmDZUgpn09r97XslxOpZvztj9caD+wPaBYtbqobkz1A0A7TbpMgyAfh26166X b3/Hw4PMJufbBoyPldx6P1iG7NuXxqbzNYweGDsQcA6La5GzvRC26qzoFs8nq4++j0vqJohT/40 CMa1mSHT3Tly2WlgffjWeJX0rKbMfE8yM4pjsDwtuKBGekqUpnH7sbImOEBTUNd10cXjhG/HizZ Ksb3ldFC2CbN0TjUDbc9IwzDzDICNHkXbxTtuLhMWn7XyH8+z8voBIh1RMGoK8f7jcr319NcHSV m1uzr3kA8OrYHdwDGfYlY/yoV/0Up6EHOb2+c7kHZDO53QSwmA7bUFBqh2V X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: Yes X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No X-TMASE-Result: 10--1.558600-8.000000 X-TMASE-Version: SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.6.1012-25736.003 X-MDID: 1603185248-SV8yAqCpowKa X-PPE-DISP: 1603185248;SV8yAqCpowKa Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 13/62] net/sfc: add verify method to flow validate path X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" From: Ivan Malov The new method is needed to make sure that a flow being validated will have a chance to be accepted by the FW. MAE-specific implementation of the method should compare the class of a rule being validated with the corresponding classes of active rules, and, if no matches found, make a request to the FW. Support for the latter will be added in future. Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko Reviewed-by: Andy Moreton --- drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h | 3 ++ drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h | 1 + 4 files changed, 119 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c index 634818cdf2..f69dd6ac5d 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec { sfc_flow_parse_cb_t *parse; + sfc_flow_verify_cb_t *verify; sfc_flow_cleanup_cb_t *cleanup; sfc_flow_insert_cb_t *insert; sfc_flow_remove_cb_t *remove; @@ -39,6 +40,7 @@ static sfc_flow_remove_cb_t sfc_flow_filter_remove; static const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec sfc_flow_ops_filter = { .parse = sfc_flow_parse_rte_to_filter, + .verify = NULL, .cleanup = NULL, .insert = sfc_flow_filter_insert, .remove = sfc_flow_filter_remove, @@ -46,6 +48,7 @@ static const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec sfc_flow_ops_filter = { static const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec sfc_flow_ops_mae = { .parse = sfc_flow_parse_rte_to_mae, + .verify = sfc_mae_flow_verify, .cleanup = sfc_mae_flow_cleanup, .insert = NULL, .remove = NULL, @@ -2543,6 +2546,41 @@ sfc_flow_remove(struct sfc_adapter *sa, struct rte_flow *flow, return rc; } +static int +sfc_flow_verify(struct sfc_adapter *sa, struct rte_flow *flow, + struct rte_flow_error *error) +{ + const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec *ops; + int rc = 0; + + ops = sfc_flow_get_ops_by_spec(flow); + if (ops == NULL) { + rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP, + RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, NULL, + "No backend to handle this flow"); + return -rte_errno; + } + + if (ops->verify != NULL) { + /* + * Use locking since verify method may need to + * access the list of already created rules. + */ + sfc_adapter_lock(sa); + rc = ops->verify(sa, flow); + sfc_adapter_unlock(sa); + } + + if (rc != 0) { + rte_flow_error_set(error, rc, + RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, NULL, + "Failed to verify flow validity with FW"); + return -rte_errno; + } + + return 0; +} + static int sfc_flow_validate(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, const struct rte_flow_attr *attr, @@ -2559,6 +2597,8 @@ sfc_flow_validate(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, return -rte_errno; rc = sfc_flow_parse(dev, attr, pattern, actions, flow, error); + if (rc == 0) + rc = sfc_flow_verify(sa, flow, error); sfc_flow_free(sa, flow); diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h index 03a68d8633..164e9f9a9a 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h @@ -159,6 +159,9 @@ typedef int (sfc_flow_parse_cb_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_flow *flow, struct rte_flow_error *error); +typedef int (sfc_flow_verify_cb_t)(struct sfc_adapter *sa, + struct rte_flow *flow); + typedef void (sfc_flow_cleanup_cb_t)(struct sfc_adapter *sa, struct rte_flow *flow); diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c index 7e4397762b..42200c3f7e 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c @@ -148,3 +148,78 @@ sfc_mae_rule_parse_pattern(struct sfc_adapter *sa, fail_init_match_spec_action: return rc; } + +static bool +sfc_mae_rules_class_cmp(struct sfc_adapter *sa, + const efx_mae_match_spec_t *left, + const efx_mae_match_spec_t *right) +{ + bool have_same_class; + int rc; + + rc = efx_mae_match_specs_class_cmp(sa->nic, left, right, + &have_same_class); + + return (rc == 0) ? have_same_class : false; +} + +static int +sfc_mae_action_rule_class_verify(struct sfc_adapter *sa, + struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *spec) +{ + const struct rte_flow *entry; + + TAILQ_FOREACH_REVERSE(entry, &sa->flow_list, sfc_flow_list, entries) { + const struct sfc_flow_spec *entry_spec = &entry->spec; + const struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *es_mae = &entry_spec->mae; + const efx_mae_match_spec_t *left = es_mae->match_spec; + const efx_mae_match_spec_t *right = spec->match_spec; + + switch (entry_spec->type) { + case SFC_FLOW_SPEC_FILTER: + /* Ignore VNIC-level flows */ + break; + case SFC_FLOW_SPEC_MAE: + if (sfc_mae_rules_class_cmp(sa, left, right)) + return 0; + break; + default: + SFC_ASSERT(false); + } + } + + sfc_info(sa, "for now, the HW doesn't support rule validation, and HW " + "support for inner frame pattern items is not guaranteed; " + "other than that, the items are valid from SW standpoint"); + return 0; +} + +/** + * Confirm that a given flow can be accepted by the FW. + * + * @param sa + * Software adapter context + * @param flow + * Flow to be verified + * @return + * Zero on success and non-zero in the case of error. + * A special value of EAGAIN indicates that the adapter is + * not in started state. This state is compulsory because + * it only makes sense to compare the rule class of the flow + * being validated with classes of the active rules. + * Such classes are wittingly supported by the FW. + */ +int +sfc_mae_flow_verify(struct sfc_adapter *sa, + struct rte_flow *flow) +{ + struct sfc_flow_spec *spec = &flow->spec; + struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *spec_mae = &spec->mae; + + SFC_ASSERT(sfc_adapter_is_locked(sa)); + + if (sa->state != SFC_ADAPTER_STARTED) + return EAGAIN; + + return sfc_mae_action_rule_class_verify(sa, spec_mae); +} diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h index 536dadd092..4c5bc4c6ce 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ int sfc_mae_rule_parse_pattern(struct sfc_adapter *sa, const struct rte_flow_item pattern[], struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *spec, struct rte_flow_error *error); +sfc_flow_verify_cb_t sfc_mae_flow_verify; #ifdef __cplusplus } -- 2.17.1