From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mellanox.co.il (mail-il-dmz.mellanox.com [193.47.165.129]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AB40322C for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 00:12:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from Internal Mail-Server by MTLPINE1 (envelope-from yskoh@mellanox.com) with ESMTPS (AES256-SHA encrypted); 30 Nov 2018 01:18:35 +0200 Received: from scfae-sc-2.mti.labs.mlnx (scfae-sc-2.mti.labs.mlnx [10.101.0.96]) by labmailer.mlnx (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id wATNCW75032075; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 01:12:40 +0200 From: Yongseok Koh To: Konstantin Ananyev Cc: dpdk stable Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 15:09:59 -0800 Message-Id: <20181129231202.30436-5-yskoh@mellanox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.11.0 In-Reply-To: <20181129231202.30436-1-yskoh@mellanox.com> References: <20181129231202.30436-1-yskoh@mellanox.com> Subject: [dpdk-stable] patch 'acl: forbid rule with priority zero' has been queued to LTS release 17.11.5 X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 23:12:45 -0000 Hi, FYI, your patch has been queued to LTS release 17.11.5 Note it hasn't been pushed to http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable yet. It will be pushed if I get no objections before 12/01/18. So please shout if anyone has objections. Also note that after the patch there's a diff of the upstream commit vs the patch applied to the branch. If the code is different (ie: not only metadata diffs), due for example to a change in context or macro names, please double check it. Thanks. Yongseok --- >>From afcbfc6d91dd4c3058c0917e50c159f71e6a7d81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Konstantin Ananyev Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:47:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] acl: forbid rule with priority zero [ upstream commit 53945477981cf75cf8d66e67a098b486e37df167 ] If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results. The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-match nodes. See more details at: https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79. The simplest way to overcome the issue is just not allow zero to be a valid priority for the rule. Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library") Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev --- lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h | 2 +- test/test/test_acl.h | 18 ++++++++++++------ 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h b/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h index b53179a83..3a3ebcdee 100644 --- a/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h +++ b/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ enum { RTE_ACL_TYPE_SHIFT = 29, RTE_ACL_MAX_INDEX = RTE_LEN2MASK(RTE_ACL_TYPE_SHIFT, uint32_t), RTE_ACL_MAX_PRIORITY = RTE_ACL_MAX_INDEX, - RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 0, + RTE_ACL_MIN_PRIORITY = 1, }; #define RTE_ACL_MASKLEN_TO_BITMASK(v, s) \ diff --git a/test/test/test_acl.h b/test/test/test_acl.h index 421f3109b..6f5c485ad 100644 --- a/test/test/test_acl.h +++ b/test/test/test_acl.h @@ -109,34 +109,40 @@ enum { struct rte_acl_ipv4vlan_rule invalid_layout_rules[] = { /* test src and dst address */ { - .data = {.userdata = 1, .category_mask = 1}, + .data = {.userdata = 1, .category_mask = 1, + .priority = 1}, .src_addr = IPv4(10,0,0,0), .src_mask_len = 24, }, { - .data = {.userdata = 2, .category_mask = 1}, + .data = {.userdata = 2, .category_mask = 1, + .priority = 1}, .dst_addr = IPv4(10,0,0,0), .dst_mask_len = 24, }, /* test src and dst ports */ { - .data = {.userdata = 3, .category_mask = 1}, + .data = {.userdata = 3, .category_mask = 1, + .priority = 1}, .dst_port_low = 100, .dst_port_high = 100, }, { - .data = {.userdata = 4, .category_mask = 1}, + .data = {.userdata = 4, .category_mask = 1, + .priority = 1}, .src_port_low = 100, .src_port_high = 100, }, /* test proto */ { - .data = {.userdata = 5, .category_mask = 1}, + .data = {.userdata = 5, .category_mask = 1, + .priority = 1}, .proto = 0xf, .proto_mask = 0xf }, { - .data = {.userdata = 6, .category_mask = 1}, + .data = {.userdata = 6, .category_mask = 1, + .priority = 1}, .dst_port_low = 0xf, .dst_port_high = 0xf, } -- 2.11.0 --- Diff of the applied patch vs upstream commit (please double-check if non-empty: --- --- - 2018-11-29 15:01:45.529508404 -0800 +++ 0005-acl-forbid-rule-with-priority-zero.patch 2018-11-29 15:01:44.966960000 -0800 @@ -1,8 +1,10 @@ -From 53945477981cf75cf8d66e67a098b486e37df167 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From afcbfc6d91dd4c3058c0917e50c159f71e6a7d81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Konstantin Ananyev Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 17:47:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] acl: forbid rule with priority zero +[ upstream commit 53945477981cf75cf8d66e67a098b486e37df167 ] + If user specifies priority=0 for some of ACL rules that can cause rte_acl_classify to return wrong results. The reason is that priority zero is used internally for no-match nodes. @@ -11,7 +13,6 @@ to be a valid priority for the rule. Fixes: dc276b5780c2 ("acl: new library") -Cc: stable@dpdk.org Signed-off-by: Konstantin Ananyev --- @@ -20,10 +21,10 @@ 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h b/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h -index 34c3b9c6a..aa22e70c6 100644 +index b53179a83..3a3ebcdee 100644 --- a/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h +++ b/lib/librte_acl/rte_acl.h -@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ enum { +@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ enum { RTE_ACL_TYPE_SHIFT = 29, RTE_ACL_MAX_INDEX = RTE_LEN2MASK(RTE_ACL_TYPE_SHIFT, uint32_t), RTE_ACL_MAX_PRIORITY = RTE_ACL_MAX_INDEX, @@ -33,10 +34,10 @@ #define RTE_ACL_MASKLEN_TO_BITMASK(v, s) \ diff --git a/test/test/test_acl.h b/test/test/test_acl.h -index c4811c8f5..bbb0447a8 100644 +index 421f3109b..6f5c485ad 100644 --- a/test/test/test_acl.h +++ b/test/test/test_acl.h -@@ -80,34 +80,40 @@ enum { +@@ -109,34 +109,40 @@ enum { struct rte_acl_ipv4vlan_rule invalid_layout_rules[] = { /* test src and dst address */ {