Re: [dpdk-dev] [RFC] ethdev: add sanity packet checks

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

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/

> 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?


> + * 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?

> +			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?

> +			uint32_t l3_ok_csum:1;
> +			/**< L3 layer checksum is valid. */
> +			uint32_t l4_ok_csum:1;
> +			/**< L4 layer checksum is valid. */
> +			uint32_t reserved:28;
> +		};
> +		uint32_t  value;
> +	};
> +};