[dpdk-users] acl: delete/modify rule support

[dpdk-users] acl: delete/modify rule support

[Nikhil Jagtap]

Hi,

I had a couple of questions about ACL support in DPDK.

1) Is it possible to build the ACL context over a period of time, one rule
at a time by calling build post each add operation?
Something like this :
    rte_acl_add_rules(ctx, rule1, 1);
    rte_acl_build(ctx, build_cfg);
    rte_acl_add_rules(ctx, rule2, 1);
    rte_acl_build(ctx, build_cfg);
    rte_acl_add_rules(ctx, rule3, 1);
    rte_acl_build(ctx, build_cfg);

I tried this, and it seems to be working - but still wanted to confirm.

2) I did not find any delete-rule API. I understand from one of the email
archives (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-June/018868.html) that it is
not supported. Any specific reason why deletion of rule is not supported?
Any plan to support it?
Any alternative way other than destroying the whole context, adding the new
set of rules and building the rules again?

Regards,
Nikhil

Re: [dpdk-users] [dpdk-dev] acl: delete/modify rule support

[Anupam Kapoor]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Nikhil Jagtap <nikhil.jagtap@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Is it possible to build the ACL context over a period of time, one rule
> at a time by calling build post each add operation?
> Something like this :
>     rte_acl_add_rules(ctx, rule1, 1);
>     rte_acl_build(ctx, build_cfg);
>     rte_acl_add_rules(ctx, rule2, 1);
>     rte_acl_build(ctx, build_cfg);
>     rte_acl_add_rules(ctx, rule3, 1);
>     rte_acl_build(ctx, build_cfg);
>
> I tried this, and it seems to be working - but still wanted to confirm.
>
​yes this is fine. but building the querying data-structure is not thread
safe. so more often than not, you are better of having a rule-list, and
then building it all in one fell swoop...
​


>
> 2) I did not find any delete-rule API. I understand from one of the email
> archives (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-June/018868.html) that it
> is
> not supported. Any specific reason why deletion of rule is not supported?
> Any plan to support it?
> Any alternative way other than destroying the whole context, adding the new
> set of rules and building the rules again?
>
current implementation uses multibit-trie​s. to conserve memory, rules are
split into multiple non-overlapping/non-intersecting rules. i would wager
that implementing deletion would be non-trivial :)

better option might be to add/modify/delete your rule-list, and rebuild,
and then re-use...

​--
kind regards
anupam​


In the beginning was the lambda, and the lambda was with Emacs, and Emacs
was the lambda.