From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stable-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1198A055A
for <public@inbox.dpdk.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:35:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E791BFF2;
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:35:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-wr1-f50.google.com (mail-wr1-f50.google.com
[209.85.221.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 237DC1BFF6
for <stable@dpdk.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 10:35:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wr1-f50.google.com with SMTP id v4so2399153wrs.8
for <stable@dpdk.org>; Thu, 27 Feb 2020 01:35:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references
:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=yaaKreRx1f1Jz+SMYmxrICq443rhtiCcm6DvWrnfrrA=;
b=jWYFxA7uOusb80G1n0SvYa6FKQ5xGHU527McNmh/M60sOpBnuUVXuBGWBk2TMehchp
WoHTClOqxINJgLmlKTtsl1Z9308sQDdLoXYXI2+HF2wJT8J8hAhfy050BRMUzhQU0Ahf
OC5dcKohcwVG6e3MvDIU0ElAucOyCyI3sdfY6cvBQbEcAANESNYJDNEFfVCQY68F4mKw
5VntzugmGLpk8s16JxUy+ttd672azowaLOMfQI9HvWSSYr8yNuilFalTe3kfcofDbXy8
TgkHINUyCgjuV0kkqt3bnA3gjo8NI6i6dT0tlL8ffXY5dJuSnsL3n3gg6dmTn2Uk1vts
HzWQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to
:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=yaaKreRx1f1Jz+SMYmxrICq443rhtiCcm6DvWrnfrrA=;
b=ZjAzcL1edZd2PAYYHWvgntrpDBTJ+ZNESsw+EWssKAoo+id6KCNS+AQCpHqNg3OZZ5
c7CpHY5LazIXXSj1pwJTOSRa1WO2pAmNosUofI9jJJut7Y5KDn7ie1mKWA58kJVj2U1c
P3KecsS1DnpMbJzd7djSz+hEt5S15IjU6mLubaJVZSRGWeHUtvpWL8ZRfhD3MY74zlNt
MqLw0fnLhoagVOvESPjsJ8isXGCR91537/HigfAgaNuPWo6ihA/F+QEv1Jl9azH55u00
ODPwZZAwpjra7V2jhva6Roo0ZRRDZcPrORZMnox/Qtm4lD/oDkQDZW5X+H6YxeAh9mCT
/WPg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXPyDbR97V5z9leB0/a/GGWvXJOLLoPNWPFjzl58EaEyzDwnKvJ
dlcpjppPz9kgWjU3eQSfqek=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyTuvOJFcL8dQ+tQ3JcuPs8fGfnfg9edm9xsWVKe5Efhi/hzzh9V16HKnHZJliAmRj4neD3Lg==
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:61ce:: with SMTP id q14mr3777557wrv.222.1582796123795;
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 01:35:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([88.98.246.218])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z11sm185999wmd.47.2020.02.27.01.35.23
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
Thu, 27 Feb 2020 01:35:23 -0800 (PST)
From: luca.boccassi@gmail.com
To: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@mellanox.com>
Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>,
dpdk stable <stable@dpdk.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:33:49 +0000
Message-Id: <20200227093402.17690-29-luca.boccassi@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.20.1
In-Reply-To: <20200227093402.17690-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com>
References: <20200217174546.25334-54-luca.boccassi@gmail.com>
<20200227093402.17690-1-luca.boccassi@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: [dpdk-stable] patch 'net/mlx5: fix layer validation with
decapsulation' has been queued to stable release 19.11.1
X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches <stable.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/stable>,
<mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/stable/>
List-Post: <mailto:stable@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/stable>,
<mailto:stable-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "stable" <stable-bounces@dpdk.org>
Hi,
FYI, your patch has been queued to stable release 19.11.1
Note it hasn't been pushed to http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk-stable yet.
It will be pushed if I get no objections before 02/29/20. 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. This will indicate if there was any rebasing
needed to apply to the stable branch. If there were code changes for rebasing
(ie: not only metadata diffs), please double check that the rebase was
correctly done.
Thanks.
Luca Boccassi
---
>From f9cb01862aabf54ab0b88cd755602fe966a73c2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:26:19 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix layer validation with decapsulation
[ upstream commit e505ac7f91b59e1165c143f14b208885658d2f94 ]
Currently, the flow validate function only validate the outermost layer
with the header modify actions. If there is decapsulation action before
the header modify action, the validation should choose the inner layer
for validation.
Add decapsulation check when validate with the header modify actions.
Choose the inner layer once there is decapsulation action.
Fixes: 4bb14c83df95 ("net/mlx5: support modify header using Direct Verbs")
Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@mellanox.com>
Acked-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
---
drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c
index 2b37c1c353..9a79e6e7a4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c
@@ -3015,10 +3015,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_ipv4(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
+ uint64_t layer;
ret = flow_dv_validate_action_modify_hdr(action_flags, action, error);
if (!ret) {
- if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_L3_IPV4))
+ layer = (action_flags & MLX5_FLOW_ACTION_DECAP) ?
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_INNER_L3_IPV4 :
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L3_IPV4;
+ if (!(item_flags & layer))
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL,
@@ -3049,10 +3053,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_ipv6(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
+ uint64_t layer;
ret = flow_dv_validate_action_modify_hdr(action_flags, action, error);
if (!ret) {
- if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_L3_IPV6))
+ layer = (action_flags & MLX5_FLOW_ACTION_DECAP) ?
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_INNER_L3_IPV6 :
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L3_IPV6;
+ if (!(item_flags & layer))
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL,
@@ -3083,10 +3091,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_tp(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
+ uint64_t layer;
ret = flow_dv_validate_action_modify_hdr(action_flags, action, error);
if (!ret) {
- if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_L4))
+ layer = (action_flags & MLX5_FLOW_ACTION_DECAP) ?
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_INNER_L4 :
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4;
+ if (!(item_flags & layer))
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL, "no transport layer "
@@ -3118,10 +3130,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_tcp_seq(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
+ uint64_t layer;
ret = flow_dv_validate_action_modify_hdr(action_flags, action, error);
if (!ret) {
- if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_TCP))
+ layer = (action_flags & MLX5_FLOW_ACTION_DECAP) ?
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_INNER_L4_TCP :
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_TCP;
+ if (!(item_flags & layer))
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL, "no TCP item in"
@@ -3163,10 +3179,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_tcp_ack(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
+ uint64_t layer;
ret = flow_dv_validate_action_modify_hdr(action_flags, action, error);
if (!ret) {
- if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_TCP))
+ layer = (action_flags & MLX5_FLOW_ACTION_DECAP) ?
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_INNER_L4_TCP :
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L4_TCP;
+ if (!(item_flags & layer))
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL, "no TCP item in"
@@ -3207,10 +3227,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_ttl(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
+ uint64_t layer;
ret = flow_dv_validate_action_modify_hdr(action_flags, action, error);
if (!ret) {
- if (!(item_flags & MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_L3))
+ layer = (action_flags & MLX5_FLOW_ACTION_DECAP) ?
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_INNER_L3 :
+ MLX5_FLOW_LAYER_OUTER_L3;
+ if (!(item_flags & layer))
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL,
--
2.20.1
---
Diff of the applied patch vs upstream commit (please double-check if non-empty:
---
--- - 2020-02-27 09:31:56.765128296 +0000
+++ 0029-net-mlx5-fix-layer-validation-with-decapsulation.patch 2020-02-27 09:31:55.787946255 +0000
@@ -1,8 +1,10 @@
-From e505ac7f91b59e1165c143f14b208885658d2f94 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From f9cb01862aabf54ab0b88cd755602fe966a73c2a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 16:26:19 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] net/mlx5: fix layer validation with decapsulation
+[ upstream commit e505ac7f91b59e1165c143f14b208885658d2f94 ]
+
Currently, the flow validate function only validate the outermost layer
with the header modify actions. If there is decapsulation action before
the header modify action, the validation should choose the inner layer
@@ -12,7 +14,6 @@
Choose the inner layer once there is decapsulation action.
Fixes: 4bb14c83df95 ("net/mlx5: support modify header using Direct Verbs")
-Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Suanming Mou <suanmingm@mellanox.com>
Acked-by: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
@@ -21,10 +22,10 @@
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c
-index 99d668f5d3..caa0ff8bad 100644
+index 2b37c1c353..9a79e6e7a4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c
+++ b/drivers/net/mlx5/mlx5_flow_dv.c
-@@ -3096,10 +3096,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_ipv4(const uint64_t action_flags,
+@@ -3015,10 +3015,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_ipv4(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
@@ -40,7 +41,7 @@
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL,
-@@ -3130,10 +3134,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_ipv6(const uint64_t action_flags,
+@@ -3049,10 +3053,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_ipv6(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
@@ -56,7 +57,7 @@
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL,
-@@ -3164,10 +3172,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_tp(const uint64_t action_flags,
+@@ -3083,10 +3091,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_tp(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
@@ -72,7 +73,7 @@
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL, "no transport layer "
-@@ -3199,10 +3211,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_tcp_seq(const uint64_t action_flags,
+@@ -3118,10 +3130,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_tcp_seq(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
@@ -88,7 +89,7 @@
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL, "no TCP item in"
-@@ -3244,10 +3260,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_tcp_ack(const uint64_t action_flags,
+@@ -3163,10 +3179,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_tcp_ack(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;
@@ -104,7 +105,7 @@
return rte_flow_error_set(error, EINVAL,
RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_ACTION,
NULL, "no TCP item in"
-@@ -3288,10 +3308,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_ttl(const uint64_t action_flags,
+@@ -3207,10 +3227,14 @@ flow_dv_validate_action_modify_ttl(const uint64_t action_flags,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
int ret = 0;