From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5729A0562; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:36:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B1B9141288; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:36:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F82B141279 for ; Mon, 12 Apr 2021 19:36:51 +0200 (CEST) IronPort-SDR: munBzeNKol82JD+gYvM5B7pq2v0OrL/CrePjF08iLIQsvvpLYUYB0yhmlatGPvPFCYKUPIoCiG 9S9raAyGt2EA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,9952"; a="194275278" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,216,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="194275278" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Apr 2021 10:36:50 -0700 IronPort-SDR: pQgCvpf/Bn2+nLKFyJ9hPcvAlHFJTD7JsaN7WSHCoHGu9K3yTouZ95Q1CXGqUadcwmgl22xKPL emC75oNBjx5A== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.82,216,1613462400"; d="scan'208";a="460255583" Received: from fyigit-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.213.203.254]) ([10.213.203.254]) by orsmga001-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Apr 2021 10:36:48 -0700 To: Gregory Etelson , orika@nvidia.com Cc: ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com, andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru, dev@dpdk.org, jerinj@marvell.com, olivier.matz@6wind.com, thomas@monjalon.net, viacheslavo@nvidia.com References: <1617645874-105139-1-git-send-email-orika@nvidia.com> <20210411173414.12568-1-getelson@nvidia.com> <20210411173414.12568-2-getelson@nvidia.com> From: Ferruh Yigit X-User: ferruhy Message-ID: <527c07fc-8c12-3e8a-cc3c-f6e345ee1c1f@intel.com> Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 18:36:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210411173414.12568-2-getelson@nvidia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] ethdev: add packet integrity checks X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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" On 4/11/2021 6:34 PM, Gregory Etelson wrote: > From: Ori Kam > > Currently, DPDK application can offload the checksum check, > and report it in the mbuf. > > However, as more and more applications are offloading some or all > logic and action to the HW, there is a need to check the packet > integrity so the right decision can be taken. > > The application logic can be positive meaning if the packet is > valid jump / do actions, or negative if packet is not valid > jump to SW / do actions (like drop) a, and add default flow > (match all in low priority) that will direct the miss packet > to the miss path. > > Since currenlty rte_flow works in positive way the assumtion is > that the postive way will be the common way in this case also. > > When thinking what is the best API to implement such feature, > we need to considure the following (in no specific order): > 1. API breakage. > 2. Simplicity. > 3. Performance. > 4. HW capabilities. > 5. rte_flow limitation. > 6. Flexability. > > First option: Add integrity flags to each of the items. > For example add checksum_ok to ipv4 item. > > Pros: > 1. No new rte_flow item. > 2. Simple in the way that on each item the app can see > what checks are available. > > Cons: > 1. API breakage. > 2. increase number of flows, since app can't add global rule and > must have dedicated flow for each of the flow combinations, for example > matching on icmp traffic or UDP/TCP traffic with IPv4 / IPv6 will > result in 5 flows. > > Second option: dedicated item > > Pros: > 1. No API breakage, and there will be no for some time due to having > extra space. (by using bits) > 2. Just one flow to support the icmp or UDP/TCP traffic with IPv4 / > IPv6. > 3. Simplicity application can just look at one place to see all possible > checks. > 4. Allow future support for more tests. > > Cons: > 1. New item, that holds number of fields from different items. > > For starter the following bits are suggested: > 1. packet_ok - means that all HW checks depending on packet layer have > passed. This may mean that in some HW such flow should be splited to > number of flows or fail. > 2. l2_ok - all check flor layer 2 have passed. > 3. l3_ok - all check flor layer 2 have passed. If packet doens't have > l3 layer this check shoudl fail. > 4. l4_ok - all check flor layer 2 have passed. If packet doesn't > have l4 layer this check should fail. > 5. l2_crc_ok - the layer 2 crc is O.K. it is possible that the crc will > be O.K. but the l3_ok will be 0. it is not possible that l2_crc_ok will > be 0 and the l3_ok will be 0. > 6. ipv4_csum_ok - IPv4 checksum is O.K. > 7. l4_csum_ok - layer 4 checksum is O.K. > 8. l3_len_OK - check that the reported layer 3 len is smaller than the > packet len. > > Example of usage: > 1. check packets from all possible layers for integrity. > flow create integrity spec packet_ok = 1 mask packet_ok = 1 ..... > > 2. Check only packet with layer 4 (UDP / TCP) > flow create integrity spec l3_ok = 1, l4_ok = 1 mask l3_ok = 1 l4_ok = 1 > Hi Ori, Is the intention of the API just filtering, like apply some action to the packets based on their integration status. Like drop packets their l2_crc checksum failed? Here configuration is done by existing offload APIs. Or is the intention to configure the integration check on NIC, like to say enable layer 2 checks, and do the action based on integration check status. > Signed-off-by: Ori Kam > --- > v2: fix compilation error > --- > doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 19 ++++++++++++ > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 66 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > index e1b93ecedf..87ef591405 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst > @@ -1398,6 +1398,25 @@ Matches a eCPRI header. > - ``hdr``: eCPRI header definition (``rte_ecpri.h``). > - Default ``mask`` matches nothing, for all eCPRI messages. > > +Item: ``PACKET_INTEGRITY_CHECKS`` > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > + > +Matches packet integrity. > + > +- ``level``: the encapsulation level that should be checked. level 0 means the > + default PMD mode (Can be inner most / outermost). value of 1 means outermost > + and higher value means inner header. See also RSS level. > +- ``packet_ok``: All HW packet integrity checks have passed based on the max > + layer of the packet. > + layer of the packet. > +- ``l2_ok``: all layer 2 HW integrity checks passed. > +- ``l3_ok``: all layer 3 HW integrity checks passed. > +- ``l4_ok``: all layer 3 HW integrity checks passed. s/layer 3/ layer 4/ > +- ``l2_crc_ok``: layer 2 crc check passed. > +- ``ipv4_csum_ok``: ipv4 checksum check passed. > +- ``l4_csum_ok``: layer 4 checksum check passed. > +- ``l3_len_ok``: the layer 3 len is smaller than the packet len. > + > Actions > ~~~~~~~ > > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > index 6cc57136ac..77471af2c4 100644 > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h > @@ -551,6 +551,15 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type { > * See struct rte_flow_item_geneve_opt > */ > RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_GENEVE_OPT, > + > + /** > + * [META] > + * > + * Matches on packet integrity. > + * > + * See struct rte_flow_item_integrity. > + */ > + RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_INTEGRITY, > }; > > /** > @@ -1685,6 +1694,44 @@ rte_flow_item_geneve_opt_mask = { > }; > #endif > > +__extension__ > +struct rte_flow_item_integrity { > + uint32_t level; > + /**< Packet encapsulation level the item should apply to. > + * @see rte_flow_action_rss > + */ > + union { > + struct { > + uint64_t packet_ok:1; > + /** The packet is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + uint64_t l2_ok:1; > + /**< L2 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + uint64_t l3_ok:1; > + /**< L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + uint64_t l4_ok:1; > + /**< L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */ > + uint64_t l2_crc_ok:1; > + /**< L2 layer checksum is valid. */ > + uint64_t ipv4_csum_ok:1; > + /**< L3 layer checksum is valid. */ > + uint64_t l4_csum_ok:1; > + /**< L4 layer checksum is valid. */ > + uint64_t l3_len_ok:1; > + /**< The l3 len is smaller than the packet len. */ packet len? > + uint64_t reserved:56; > + }; > + uint64_t value; > + }; > +}; > + > +#ifndef __cplusplus > +static const struct rte_flow_item_integrity > +rte_flow_item_integrity_mask = { > + .level = 0, > + .value = 0, > +}; > +#endif > + > /** > * Matching pattern item definition. > * >