From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com (mail-ig0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C1F7E7B for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:33:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id l13so436731iga.14 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:42:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=AChgoU6P4EpTTkXRxlZuysDKMApYl3Jy5zGsJeXJPIs=; b=HALXJhgVjPz2yqEIKqaSlB9rMGzJsFMBZRPiZNVb5paSX4S4MlJb6zVHkcwh5Ttv5v QRmYW8Z3oCos9mfUxNUJ93F1R36UdGP/V9rnC6wWO3l/P4Bi7CLwwFaetL7BBCw91Hp9 dbJc9Mqqb5ETiKjthIEAiuW7CScY/ISGjb9wdhqDO5l64tJBn6RWZEPFukGbGHkXqz0E uCCq9rBWWmBrnlhHVqW+aNW+fliPqPCmpQey5KLOovmWkZ7FB8c00nSDcaqGrl8+k+Sr l3DQC7RVFUGFUno7Gar5P5zJf1G+OUWjYp0EJhirDGF6rBu68A74k2/4vbO7iDBSKWfG Uk9Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmXPQj9AjomQvM0KfyHLc89girIchca9snDuwJWi66B6vl1xtkXW10ssG655D/cgm6NftJj MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.42.236.142 with SMTP id kk14mr2882346icb.15.1413963735450; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.132.69 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 00:42:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:42:12 +0300 Message-ID: From: alex To: "Zhu, Heqing" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] FW: nic loopback X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:33:57 -0000 On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Zhu, Heqing wrote: > One line comment inline. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Liang, Cunming > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 8:33 PM > > To: Alex Markuze > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] nic loopback > > > > It=E2=80=99s a pain VF can=E2=80=99t set the register directly. > > As kernel ixgbe don=E2=80=99t support to set the value, I=E2=80=99m afr= aid you have to > modify > > kernel ixgbe. > > If your purpose is mainly for testing purpose. > > One option is you can just set the register bit value to full 1 during > device > > initialization. > > Another option is you can choose to use DPDK as host PF. > > Running testpmd in host, and set such register by interactive command > line. > > > > Ideally it=E2=80=99s better to add a kind of VF to PF mailbox message. > > Host PF delegate VF to enable the local pool loopback. > > So during runtime, VF can proactive to enable/disable the ability. > > [heqing] Such a proposal has been discussed a few times, but the kernel > driver does not accept this due to the security concern. I will try a different approach, Is there a tool available by intel for 82599 nics that can access the NIC's configuration and modify these registers manually? w/o Modifying hypervisor drivers and/or using PF? > > > > > > > From: Alex Markuze [mailto:alex@weka.io] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 11:16 PM > > To: Liang, Cunming > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] nic loopback > > > > How can I set/query this bit (LLE(PFVMTXSW[n]), intel 82599 ) on ESX, o= r > any > > other friendlier environment like Linux? > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Liang, Cunming > > > wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dev > > [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] > > > On Behalf Of Alex Markuze > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:24 AM > > > To: dev@dpdk.org > > > Subject: [dpdk-dev] nic loopback > > > > > > Hi, > > > I'm trying to send packets from an application to it self, meaning > > > smac =3D=3D dmac. > > > I'm working with intel 82599 virtual function. But it seems that thes= e > > > packets are lost. > > > > > > Is there a software/hw limitation I'm missing here (some additional > > > anti-spoofing)? AFAIK modern NICs with sriov are mini switches so the > > > hw loopback should work, at least thats the theory. > > > > > [Liang, Cunming] You could have a check on register LLE(PFVMTXSW[n]). > > Which allow an individual pool to be able to send traffic and have it > loopback > > to itself. > > > > > > Thanks. > >