DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Akhil Goyal <gakhil@marvell.com>,
	Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree@marvell.com>
Cc: "Nicolau, Radu" <radu.nicolau@intel.com>,
	Anoob Joseph <anoobj@marvell.com>,
	Ankur Dwivedi <adwivedi@marvell.com>,
	"Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran" <jerinj@marvell.com>,
	"dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [EXT] Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] mbuf: add packet type for UDP-ESP tunnel packets
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 15:46:25 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB44912715030EFF60DCAB7BAC9A4F9@DM6PR11MB4491.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MW2PR18MB22846D52A57BE23C1D0B8A6ED84F9@MW2PR18MB2284.namprd18.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Akhil,

> 
>  Hi Olivier/ Konstantin,
> > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 01:47:18PM +0530, Tejasree Kondoj wrote:
> > > > Adding new mbuf packet type for UDP encapsulated
> > > > ESP packets.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree@marvell.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst |  5 +++++
> > > >  lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h       | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > > b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > > > index 5565c7637c..c9e9e2ec22 100644
> > > > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > > > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > > > @@ -55,6 +55,11 @@ New Features
> > > >       Also, make sure to start the actual text at the margin.
> > > >       =======================================================
> > > >
> > > > +* **Added new packet type for UDP-ESP packets in mbuf.**
> > > > +
> > > > +  Added new packet type ``RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP_IN_UDP`` which can
> > > be
> > > > +  used to identify UDP encapsulated ESP packets.
> > > > +
> > > >  * **Enhanced ethdev representor syntax.**
> > > >
> > > >    * Introduced representor type of VF, SF and PF.
> > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h
> > > b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h
> > > > index 17a2dd3576..bf92ce0c1a 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h
> > > > +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf_ptype.h
> > > > @@ -491,6 +491,27 @@ extern "C" {
> > > >   * | 'destination port'=6635>
> > > >   */
> > > >  #define RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_MPLS_IN_UDP      0x0000d000
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * ESP-in-UDP tunneling packet type (RFC 3948).
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Packet format:
> > > > + * <'ether type'=0x0800
> > > > + * | 'version'=4, 'protocol'=17
> > > > + * | 'destination port'=4500>
> > > > + * or,
> > > > + * <'ether type'=0x86DD
> > > > + * | 'version'=6, 'next header'=17
> > > > + * | 'destination port'=4500>
> > > > + * or,
> > > > + * <'ether type'=0x0800
> > > > + * | 'version'=4, 'protocol'=17
> > > > + * | 'source port'=4500>
> > > > + * or,
> > > > + * <'ether type'=0x86DD
> > > > + * | 'version'=6, 'next header'=17
> > > > + * | 'source port'=4500>
> > > > + */
> > > > +#define RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP_IN_UDP       0x0000e000
> > > >  /**
> > > >   * Mask of tunneling packet types.
> > > >   */
> > >
> > > We arrive at the end of the values in packet type tunnel types,
> > > and there is another pending patch that needs another tunnel type.
> > >
> > > As there is already a RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP, what would you think about
> > > trying to reuse it, and differentiate IP/ESP from IP/UDP/ESP by using
> > > the L4 layer type (unknown vs udp)? Or maybe add RTE_PTYPE_L4_NONE.
> > >
> > > It is sensible, because it can be considered as an API change for
> > > current users of RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP. I don't really know how this
> > > type is used by applications.
> >
> > It is OK to use combination of these two but with an assumption
> > that a normal - IP-UDP packet when encrypted will be an IP-ESP packet
> > And L4 types are reset from the mbuf->packet_type by the driver.
> > @Konstantin Ananyev: Are you OK with this assumption?
> >
> > And, if we choose this path, then also we may need a macro in this file,
> > So that application doesn't have to combine that explicitly for a standard use
> > case.
> > #define RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP_IN_UDP       RTE_PTYPE_TUNNEL_ESP |
> > RTE_PTYPE_L4_UDP
> >
> > Will this be fine?
> >
> Can we proceed with this approach?

I think we can safely use such combination inside ipsec-secgw app.
About making it a new generic type - I am not so sure. 
As Olivier already pointed out - it looks like an API/behaviour breakage to me. 

> Regards,
> Akhil
> 
> > >
> > > I think it is time to start thinking about how the packet_type
> > > mbuf API can evolve to solve this issue.

+1
Might be it needs to be reworked completely.

> > >
> > > By the way, the update of *rte_get_ptype_tunnel_name() is missing.

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-13 15:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-08  8:17 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] add lookaside IPsec UDP encapsulation and transport mode Tejasree Kondoj
2021-04-08  8:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] crypto/octeontx2: add UDP encapsulation support Tejasree Kondoj
2021-04-08  8:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] mbuf: add packet type for UDP-ESP tunnel packets Tejasree Kondoj
2021-04-08  8:33   ` Tejasree Kondoj
2021-04-08 11:10   ` Olivier Matz
2021-04-09 10:56     ` [dpdk-dev] [EXT] " Akhil Goyal
2021-04-13 13:03       ` Akhil Goyal
2021-04-13 15:46         ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2021-04-08  8:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] examples/ipsec-secgw: add UDP encapsulation support Tejasree Kondoj
2021-04-08 10:45   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-04-08  8:17 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] crypto/octeontx2: support lookaside IPv4 transport mode Tejasree Kondoj

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=DM6PR11MB44912715030EFF60DCAB7BAC9A4F9@DM6PR11MB4491.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
    --cc=adwivedi@marvell.com \
    --cc=anoobj@marvell.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=gakhil@marvell.com \
    --cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
    --cc=ktejasree@marvell.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=radu.nicolau@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK patches and discussions

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/0 dev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 dev dev/ https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev \
		dev@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index dev

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.dev


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git