* [dpdk-dev] ACL: BUG: rte_acl_classify_scalar mismatch when use a special rule
@ 2016-07-27 10:34 =?gb18030?B?za+9+A==?=
2016-07-27 11:31 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: =?gb18030?B?za+9+A==?= @ 2016-07-27 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: =?gb18030?B?ZGV2?=
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="gb18030", Size: 3588 bytes --]
define a rule as following:
struct acl_ipv4_rule acl_rule[] = {
{
.data = {.userdata = 103, .category_mask = 1, .priority = 1},
/* proto */
.field[0] = {.value.u8 = 0, .mask_range.u8 = 0x0,},
/* source IPv4 */
.field[1] = {.value.u32 = IPv4(0, 0, 0, 0), .mask_range.u32 = 0,},
/* destination IPv4 */
.field[2] = {.value.u32 = IPv4(192, 168, 2, 4), .mask_range.u32 = 32,},
/* source port */
.field[3] = {.value.u16 = 0, .mask_range.u16 = 0xffff,},
/* destination port */
.field[4] = {.value.u16 = 1024, .mask_range.u16 = 0xffff,},
},
};
build a pkt like this:
pv4_hdr->next_proto_id = 6;
ipv4_hdr->src_addr = rte_cpu_to_be_32(IPv4(10, 18, 2, 3));
ipv4_hdr->dst_addr = rte_cpu_to_be_32(IPv4(192, 168, 2, 4));
port = (uint16_t*)((unsigned char*)ipv4_hdr + sizeof(struct ipv4_hdr));
port[0] = rte_cpu_to_be_16(3333);
port[1] = rte_cpu_to_be_16(4608);
rte_acl_classify_scalar will mismatch this packet!
i readed rte_acl_classify_scalar function, and found the reason:
while (flows.started > 0) {
input0 = GET_NEXT_4BYTES(parms, 0);
input1 = GET_NEXT_4BYTES(parms, 1);
for (n = 0; n < 4; n++) {
transition0 = scalar_transition(flows.trans,
transition0, (uint8_t)input0);
input0 >>= CHAR_BIT;
transition1 = scalar_transition(flows.trans,
transition1, (uint8_t)input1);
input1 >>= CHAR_BIT;
}
while ((transition0 | transition1) & RTE_ACL_NODE_MATCH) {
transition0 = acl_match_check(transition0,
0, ctx, parms, &flows, resolve_priority_scalar);
transition1 = acl_match_check(transition1,
1, ctx, parms, &flows, resolve_priority_scalar);
}
}
everytime, scalar get 4bytes to transition, and usually it work well, but if we set a acl rule as prior, mismatch will appear.
this is because field[3] is a 100% wild node, so it was removed as a deactivated field.
in this situation, when rte_acl_classify_scalar runs, proto/sip/dip match ok, and then it skip sport because it was removed.
now input0 is a int value(4 bytes) started form dport.
it will get a match-node after 2 bytes match(dport is a short value), but cycle stoped untill n = 4, finally it translated to another node which is not a match-node, the mismatch happened.
i'm not sure search_sse_8/search_sse_4/search_avx2x16 is Ok.
how to fix it?
i think set GET_NEXT_4BYTES to GET_NEXT_BYTE will solve this problem, but it will influence performance.
another way, don't use acl_rule_stats to remove deactivated field, but code will change a lot.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] ACL: BUG: rte_acl_classify_scalar mismatch when use a special rule
2016-07-27 10:34 [dpdk-dev] ACL: BUG: rte_acl_classify_scalar mismatch when use a special rule =?gb18030?B?za+9+A==?=
@ 2016-07-27 11:31 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-07-27 14:12 ` [dpdk-dev] =?gb18030?q?ACL=3A_BUG=3A_rte=5Facl=5Fclassify=5Fscalar_mismatch_when_usea=09special_rule?= =?gb18030?B?za+9+A==?=
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ananyev, Konstantin @ 2016-07-27 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: tongjinam, dev
Hi,
>
> define a rule as following:
>
> struct acl_ipv4_rule acl_rule[] = {
> {
> .data = {.userdata = 103, .category_mask = 1, .priority = 1},
> /* proto */
> .field[0] = {.value.u8 = 0, .mask_range.u8 = 0x0,},
> /* source IPv4 */
> .field[1] = {.value.u32 = IPv4(0, 0, 0, 0), .mask_range.u32 = 0,},
> /* destination IPv4 */
> .field[2] = {.value.u32 = IPv4(192, 168, 2, 4), .mask_range.u32 = 32,},
> /* source port */
> .field[3] = {.value.u16 = 0, .mask_range.u16 = 0xffff,},
> /* destination port */
> .field[4] = {.value.u16 = 1024, .mask_range.u16 = 0xffff,},
> },
> };
>
> build a pkt like this:
>
> pv4_hdr->next_proto_id = 6;
> ipv4_hdr->src_addr = rte_cpu_to_be_32(IPv4(10, 18, 2, 3));
> ipv4_hdr->dst_addr = rte_cpu_to_be_32(IPv4(192, 168, 2, 4));
> port = (uint16_t*)((unsigned char*)ipv4_hdr + sizeof(struct ipv4_hdr));
> port[0] = rte_cpu_to_be_16(3333);
> port[1] = rte_cpu_to_be_16(4608);
>
> rte_acl_classify_scalar will mismatch this packet!
>
> i readed rte_acl_classify_scalar function, and found the reason:
>
> while (flows.started > 0) {
>
> input0 = GET_NEXT_4BYTES(parms, 0);
> input1 = GET_NEXT_4BYTES(parms, 1);
>
> for (n = 0; n < 4; n++) {
>
> transition0 = scalar_transition(flows.trans,
> transition0, (uint8_t)input0);
> input0 >>= CHAR_BIT;
>
> transition1 = scalar_transition(flows.trans,
> transition1, (uint8_t)input1);
> input1 >>= CHAR_BIT;
> }
>
> while ((transition0 | transition1) & RTE_ACL_NODE_MATCH) {
> transition0 = acl_match_check(transition0,
> 0, ctx, parms, &flows, resolve_priority_scalar);
> transition1 = acl_match_check(transition1,
> 1, ctx, parms, &flows, resolve_priority_scalar);
> }
> }
>
> everytime, scalar get 4bytes to transition, and usually it work well, but if we set a acl rule as prior, mismatch will appear.
> this is because field[3] is a 100% wild node, so it was removed as a deactivated field.
>
> in this situation, when rte_acl_classify_scalar runs, proto/sip/dip match ok, and then it skip sport because it was removed.
> now input0 is a int value(4 bytes) started form dport.
> it will get a match-node after 2 bytes match(dport is a short value), but cycle stoped untill n = 4, finally it translated to another node which is
> not a match-node, the mismatch happened.
>
> i'm not sure search_sse_8/search_sse_4/search_avx2x16 is Ok.
>
> how to fix it?
> i think set GET_NEXT_4BYTES to GET_NEXT_BYTE will solve this problem, but it will influence performance.
> another way, don't use acl_rule_stats to remove deactivated field, but code will change a lot.
If you believe there is a problem, could you try to reproduce it with app/testacl,
and provide a rule file and a trace file?
Thanks
Konstantin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [dpdk-dev] =?gb18030?q?ACL=3A_BUG=3A_rte=5Facl=5Fclassify=5Fscalar_mismatch_when_usea=09special_rule?=
2016-07-27 11:31 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
@ 2016-07-27 14:12 ` =?gb18030?B?za+9+A==?=
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: =?gb18030?B?za+9+A==?= @ 2016-07-27 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: =?gb18030?B?QW5hbnlldiwgS29uc3RhbnRpbg==?=, =?gb18030?B?ZGV2?=
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="gb18030", Size: 5105 bytes --]
sorry, i make a mistake when set the rte_acl_field_def.
the input_index is not consecutive when define sport/dport like this:
{
.type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
.size = sizeof(uint16_t),
.field_index = SRCP_FIELD_IPV4,
.input_index = RTE_ACL_IPV4_SPORT,
.offset = sizeof(struct ipv4_hdr) -
offsetof(struct ipv4_hdr, next_proto_id),
},
{
.type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
.size = sizeof(uint16_t),
.field_index = DSTP_FIELD_IPV4,
.input_index = RTE_ACL_IPV4_DPORT,
.offset = sizeof(struct ipv4_hdr) -
offsetof(struct ipv4_hdr, next_proto_id) +
sizeof(uint16_t),
},
input_index RTE_ACL_IPV4_SPORT is not equal to RTE_ACL_IPV4_DPORT, and size is uint16_t not 4 consecutive bytes.
in program guide, it has a instruction as following:
[input_index As mentioned above, all input fields, except the very first one, must be in groups of 4 consecutive bytes. The input index specifies to which input group that field belongs to.]
change rte_acl_field_def as following, then match ok:
{
.type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
.size = sizeof(uint16_t),
.field_index = SRCP_FIELD_IPV4,
.input_index = RTE_ACL_IPV4_PORT,
.offset = sizeof(struct ipv4_hdr) -
offsetof(struct ipv4_hdr, next_proto_id),
},
{
.type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
.size = sizeof(uint16_t),
.field_index = DSTP_FIELD_IPV4,
.input_index = RTE_ACL_IPV4_PORT,
.offset = sizeof(struct ipv4_hdr) -
offsetof(struct ipv4_hdr, next_proto_id) +
sizeof(uint16_t),
},
emr, read the code of ACL lib again, especially acl_calc_wildness and acl_rule_stats functions, full of trick!
------------------ Original ------------------
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin";<konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>;
Send time: Wednesday, Jul 27, 2016 7:31 PM
To: "ͯ½ø"<tongjinam@qq.com>; "dev"<dev@dpdk.org>;
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] ACL: BUG: rte_acl_classify_scalar mismatch when usea special rule
Hi,
>
> define a rule as following:
>
> struct acl_ipv4_rule acl_rule[] = {
> {
> .data = {.userdata = 103, .category_mask = 1, .priority = 1},
> /* proto */
> .field[0] = {.value.u8 = 0, .mask_range.u8 = 0x0,},
> /* source IPv4 */
> .field[1] = {.value.u32 = IPv4(0, 0, 0, 0), .mask_range.u32 = 0,},
> /* destination IPv4 */
> .field[2] = {.value.u32 = IPv4(192, 168, 2, 4), .mask_range.u32 = 32,},
> /* source port */
> .field[3] = {.value.u16 = 0, .mask_range.u16 = 0xffff,},
> /* destination port */
> .field[4] = {.value.u16 = 1024, .mask_range.u16 = 0xffff,},
> },
> };
>
> build a pkt like this:
>
> pv4_hdr->next_proto_id = 6;
> ipv4_hdr->src_addr = rte_cpu_to_be_32(IPv4(10, 18, 2, 3));
> ipv4_hdr->dst_addr = rte_cpu_to_be_32(IPv4(192, 168, 2, 4));
> port = (uint16_t*)((unsigned char*)ipv4_hdr + sizeof(struct ipv4_hdr));
> port[0] = rte_cpu_to_be_16(3333);
> port[1] = rte_cpu_to_be_16(4608);
>
> rte_acl_classify_scalar will mismatch this packet!
>
> i readed rte_acl_classify_scalar function, and found the reason:
>
> while (flows.started > 0) {
>
> input0 = GET_NEXT_4BYTES(parms, 0);
> input1 = GET_NEXT_4BYTES(parms, 1);
>
> for (n = 0; n < 4; n++) {
>
> transition0 = scalar_transition(flows.trans,
> transition0, (uint8_t)input0);
> input0 >>= CHAR_BIT;
>
> transition1 = scalar_transition(flows.trans,
> transition1, (uint8_t)input1);
> input1 >>= CHAR_BIT;
> }
>
> while ((transition0 | transition1) & RTE_ACL_NODE_MATCH) {
> transition0 = acl_match_check(transition0,
> 0, ctx, parms, &flows, resolve_priority_scalar);
> transition1 = acl_match_check(transition1,
> 1, ctx, parms, &flows, resolve_priority_scalar);
> }
> }
>
> everytime, scalar get 4bytes to transition, and usually it work well, but if we set a acl rule as prior, mismatch will appear.
> this is because field[3] is a 100% wild node, so it was removed as a deactivated field.
>
> in this situation, when rte_acl_classify_scalar runs, proto/sip/dip match ok, and then it skip sport because it was removed.
> now input0 is a int value(4 bytes) started form dport.
> it will get a match-node after 2 bytes match(dport is a short value), but cycle stoped untill n = 4, finally it translated to another node which is
> not a match-node, the mismatch happened.
>
> i'm not sure search_sse_8/search_sse_4/search_avx2x16 is Ok.
>
> how to fix it?
> i think set GET_NEXT_4BYTES to GET_NEXT_BYTE will solve this problem, but it will influence performance.
> another way, don't use acl_rule_stats to remove deactivated field, but code will change a lot.
If you believe there is a problem, could you try to reproduce it with app/testacl,
and provide a rule file and a trace file?
Thanks
Konstantin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-27 14:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-07-27 10:34 [dpdk-dev] ACL: BUG: rte_acl_classify_scalar mismatch when use a special rule =?gb18030?B?za+9+A==?=
2016-07-27 11:31 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2016-07-27 14:12 ` [dpdk-dev] =?gb18030?q?ACL=3A_BUG=3A_rte=5Facl=5Fclassify=5Fscalar_mismatch_when_usea=09special_rule?= =?gb18030?B?za+9+A==?=
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).