From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Huichao Cai <chcchc88@163.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ip_frag: add IPv4 options fragment and test data
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:04:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB44915F34A2C1339BF81527E69A379@DM6PR11MB4491.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1644915055-38172-1-git-send-email-chcchc88@163.com>
Hi Huichao,
> According to RFC791,the options may appear or not in datagrams.
> They must be implemented by all IP modules (host and gateways).
> What is optional is their transmission in any particular datagram,
> not their implementation.So we have to deal with it during the
> fragmenting process.Add some test data for the IPv4 header optional
> field fragmenting.
>
...
> diff --git a/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c b/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
> index 2e7739d..82c070b 100644
> --- a/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
> +++ b/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,12 @@
>
> #include "ip_frag_common.h"
>
> +/* IP options */
> +#define RTE_IPOPT_EOL 0
> +#define RTE_IPOPT_NOP 1
> +#define RTE_IPOPT_COPIED(v) ((v) & 0x80)
> +#define RTE_IPOPT_MAX_LEN 40
> +
> /* Fragment Offset */
> #define RTE_IPV4_HDR_DF_SHIFT 14
> #define RTE_IPV4_HDR_MF_SHIFT 13
> @@ -22,6 +28,8 @@
>
> #define IPV4_HDR_FO_ALIGN (1 << RTE_IPV4_HDR_FO_SHIFT)
>
> +#define RTE_IPV4_HDR_MAX_LEN 60
> +
> static inline void __fill_ipv4hdr_frag(struct rte_ipv4_hdr *dst,
> const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *src, uint16_t header_len,
> uint16_t len, uint16_t fofs, uint16_t dofs, uint32_t mf)
> @@ -41,6 +49,58 @@ static inline void __free_fragments(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t num)
> rte_pktmbuf_free(mb[i]);
> }
>
> +static inline void __create_ipopt_frag_hdr(uint8_t *iph,
> + uint16_t *ipopt_len, uint8_t *ipopt_frag_hdr)
> +{
> + uint16_t len = *ipopt_len;
> + struct rte_ipv4_hdr *iph_opt = (struct rte_ipv4_hdr *)ipopt_frag_hdr;
> +
> + *ipopt_len = 0;
> + rte_memcpy(ipopt_frag_hdr, iph, sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr));
> + iph_opt->ihl = sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr) / RTE_IPV4_IHL_MULTIPLIER;
> + ipopt_frag_hdr += sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr);
> +
> + if (unlikely(len > RTE_IPOPT_MAX_LEN))
> + return;
> +
> + uint8_t *p_opt = iph + sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr);
> +
> + while (len > 0) {
> + if (unlikely(*p_opt == RTE_IPOPT_NOP)) {
> + len--;
> + p_opt++;
> +#ifdef RTE_IPOPT_KEEP_IP_HLEN
Who will define this macro and when?
In general we trying to avoid conditional compilations within DPDK.
Can we always use one way or another?
As you are doing a copy anyway, probably no harm just
completely remove RTE_IPOPT_KEEP_IP_HLEN and related behaviour
and copy only options that need to be copied.
WDYT?
> + ipopt_frag_hdr[(*ipopt_len)++] = RTE_IPOPT_NOP;
> +#endif
> + continue;
> + } else if (unlikely(*p_opt == RTE_IPOPT_EOL))
> + break;
> +
> + if (p_opt[1] < 2 || p_opt[1] > len)
> + break;
> + if (RTE_IPOPT_COPIED(*p_opt)) {
> + rte_memcpy(ipopt_frag_hdr + *ipopt_len,
> + p_opt, p_opt[1]);
> + *ipopt_len += p_opt[1];
> +#ifdef RTE_IPOPT_KEEP_IP_HLEN
> + } else {
> + memset(ipopt_frag_hdr + *ipopt_len,
> + RTE_IPOPT_NOP, p_opt[1]);
> + *ipopt_len += p_opt[1];
> +#endif
> + }
> +
> + len -= p_opt[1];
> + p_opt += p_opt[1];
> + }
> +
> + len = RTE_ALIGN_CEIL(*ipopt_len, RTE_IPV4_IHL_MULTIPLIER);
> + memset(ipopt_frag_hdr + *ipopt_len,
> + RTE_IPOPT_EOL, len - *ipopt_len);
> + *ipopt_len = len;
> + iph_opt->ihl += len / RTE_IPV4_IHL_MULTIPLIER;
> +}
> +
> /**
> * IPv4 fragmentation.
> *
> @@ -76,6 +136,8 @@ static inline void __free_fragments(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t num)
> uint32_t more_in_segs;
> uint16_t fragment_offset, flag_offset, frag_size, header_len;
> uint16_t frag_bytes_remaining;
> + uint8_t ipopt_frag_hdr[RTE_IPV4_HDR_MAX_LEN];
> + uint16_t ipopt_len;
>
> /*
> * Formal parameter checking.
> @@ -117,6 +179,7 @@ static inline void __free_fragments(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t num)
> in_seg_data_pos = header_len;
> out_pkt_pos = 0;
> fragment_offset = 0;
> + ipopt_len = header_len - sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr);
>
> more_in_segs = 1;
> while (likely(more_in_segs)) {
> @@ -188,10 +251,26 @@ static inline void __free_fragments(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t num)
> (uint16_t)out_pkt->pkt_len,
> flag_offset, fragment_offset, more_in_segs);
>
> - fragment_offset = (uint16_t)(fragment_offset +
> - out_pkt->pkt_len - header_len);
> + /* Create a separate IP header to handle frag options. */
> + if (unlikely((fragment_offset == 0) &&
> + ((flag_offset & RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_MASK) == 0) &&
> + (ipopt_len))) {
> + __create_ipopt_frag_hdr((uint8_t *)in_hdr,
> + &ipopt_len, ipopt_frag_hdr);
> +
> + fragment_offset = (uint16_t)(fragment_offset +
> + out_pkt->pkt_len - header_len);
>
> - out_pkt->l3_len = header_len;
> + out_pkt->l3_len = header_len;
> +
> + header_len = sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr) + ipopt_len;
> + in_hdr = (struct rte_ipv4_hdr *)ipopt_frag_hdr;
> + } else {
> + fragment_offset = (uint16_t)(fragment_offset +
> + out_pkt->pkt_len - header_len);
> +
> + out_pkt->l3_len = header_len;
> + }
>
> /* Write the fragment to the output list */
> pkts_out[out_pkt_pos] = out_pkt;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-18 19:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-24 8:47 [PATCH] ip_frag: add IPv4 options fragment and unit " Huichao Cai
2021-12-01 11:49 ` Dariusz Sosnowski
2021-12-02 2:24 ` Huichao Cai
2022-02-15 8:50 ` [PATCH v2] ip_frag: add IPv4 options fragment and " Huichao Cai
2022-02-18 19:04 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2022-02-21 2:34 ` Huichao Cai
2022-02-21 3:17 ` [PATCH v3] " Huichao Cai
2022-02-25 14:33 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-02-28 12:39 ` Huichao Cai
2022-03-15 7:22 ` [PATCH v4] " Huichao Cai
2022-03-21 14:24 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-03-22 1:25 ` Huichao Cai
2022-03-22 3:09 ` [PATCH v5] " Huichao Cai
2022-03-23 12:52 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-04-06 1:22 ` Huichao Cai
2022-04-06 16:47 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-04-07 14:08 ` Aaron Conole
2022-04-13 2:49 ` Huichao Cai
2022-04-11 3:55 ` [PATCH v6] " Huichao Cai
2022-04-14 13:14 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-04-14 13:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-04-15 1:52 ` Huichao Cai
2022-04-15 3:26 ` [PATCH v7] " Huichao Cai
2022-04-15 8:29 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2022-05-29 8:50 ` Huichao Cai
2022-05-29 8:57 ` Huichao Cai
2022-05-29 10:38 ` Konstantin Ananyev
2022-05-31 21:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2022-06-16 15:10 ` David Marchand
2022-06-16 16:31 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-06-17 3:52 ` Huichao Cai
2022-06-17 16:31 ` Stephen Hemminger
2022-06-18 11:01 ` Huichao Cai
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=DM6PR11MB44915F34A2C1339BF81527E69A379@DM6PR11MB4491.namprd11.prod.outlook.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=chcchc88@163.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).