From: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
To: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>,
Gregory Etelson <getelson@nvidia.com>
Cc: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>,
dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran <jerinj@marvell.com>,
Jerin Jacob <jerinjacobk@gmail.com>,
Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>,
Slava Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>,
Matan Azrad <matan@nvidia.com>,
Raslan Darawsheh <rasland@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] ethdev: add packet integrity checks
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 15:10:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DM6PR12MB49873003C925ABA131AF5068D64D9@DM6PR12MB4987.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACZ4nhu8EqvezYwy70fjDO4ZEBw_BE-vLaNus22YYUPeHNFaug@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Ajit,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] ethdev: add packet integrity checks
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:10 AM Gregory Etelson <getelson@nvidia.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
> >
> > Currently, DPDK application can offload the checksum check,
> > and report it in the mbuf.
> >
> > However, as more and more applications are offloading some or all
> > logic and action to the HW, there is a need to check the packet
> > integrity so the right decision can be taken.
> >
> > The application logic can be positive meaning if the packet is
> > valid jump / do actions, or negative if packet is not valid
> > jump to SW / do actions (like drop) a, and add default flow
> > (match all in low priority) that will direct the miss packet
> > to the miss path.
>
> Unless I missed it,
> How do you specify the negative case?
> Can you provide an example as well?
>
You can use negative case by setting the bit to zero and the mask bit to 1:
This example was taken from the testpmd patch:
flow create 0 ingress pattern integrity value mask 1 value spec 0 / end actions queue index 0 / end
it matches all invalid packets and forward it to the application.
> >
> >
> > Since currently rte_flow works in positive way the assumption is
> > that the positive way will be the common way in this case also.
> >
> > When thinking what is the best API to implement such feature,
> > we need to considure the following (in no specific order):
> > 1. API breakage.
> > 2. Simplicity.
> > 3. Performance.
> > 4. HW capabilities.
> > 5. rte_flow limitation.
> > 6. Flexibility.
> >
> > First option: Add integrity flags to each of the items.
> > For example add checksum_ok to ipv4 item.
> >
> > Pros:
> > 1. No new rte_flow item.
> > 2. Simple in the way that on each item the app can see
> > what checks are available.
> >
> > Cons:
> > 1. API breakage.
> > 2. increase number of flows, since app can't add global rule and
> > must have dedicated flow for each of the flow combinations, for example
> > matching on icmp traffic or UDP/TCP traffic with IPv4 / IPv6 will
> > result in 5 flows.
> >
> > Second option: dedicated item
> >
> > Pros:
> > 1. No API breakage, and there will be no for some time due to having
> > extra space. (by using bits)
> > 2. Just one flow to support the icmp or UDP/TCP traffic with IPv4 /
> > IPv6.
> > 3. Simplicity application can just look at one place to see all possible
> > checks.
> > 4. Allow future support for more tests.
> >
> > Cons:
> > 1. New item, that holds number of fields from different items.
> >
> > For starter the following bits are suggested:
> > 1. packet_ok - means that all HW checks depending on packet layer have
> > passed. This may mean that in some HW such flow should be splited to
> > number of flows or fail.
> > 2. l2_ok - all check for layer 2 have passed.
> > 3. l3_ok - all check for layer 3 have passed. If packet doesn't have
> > l3 layer this check should fail.
> > 4. l4_ok - all check for layer 4 have passed. If packet doesn't
> > have l4 layer this check should fail.
> > 5. l2_crc_ok - the layer 2 crc is O.K.
> > 6. ipv4_csum_ok - IPv4 checksum is O.K. it is possible that the
> > IPv4 checksum will be O.K. but the l3_ok will be 0. it is not
> > possible that checksum will be 0 and the l3_ok will be 1.
> > 7. l4_csum_ok - layer 4 checksum is O.K.
> > 8. l3_len_OK - check that the reported layer 3 len is smaller than the
> > frame len.
> >
> > Example of usage:
> > 1. check packets from all possible layers for integrity.
> > flow create integrity spec packet_ok = 1 mask packet_ok = 1 .....
> >
> > 2. Check only packet with layer 4 (UDP / TCP)
> > flow create integrity spec l3_ok = 1, l4_ok = 1 mask l3_ok = 1 l4_ok = 1
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> > doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 20 +++++++++++
> > doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst | 5 +++
> > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > index e1b93ecedf..1dd2301a07 100644
> > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > @@ -1398,6 +1398,26 @@ Matches a eCPRI header.
> > - ``hdr``: eCPRI header definition (``rte_ecpri.h``).
> > - Default ``mask`` matches nothing, for all eCPRI messages.
> >
> > +Item: ``PACKET_INTEGRITY_CHECKS``
> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > +
> > +Matches packet integrity.
> > +For some devices application needs to enable integration checks in HW
> > +before using this item.
> > +
> > +- ``level``: the encapsulation level that should be checked. level 0 means
> the
> > + default PMD mode (Can be inner most / outermost). value of 1 means
> outermost
> > + and higher value means inner header. See also RSS level.
> > +- ``packet_ok``: All HW packet integrity checks have passed based on the
> max
> > + layer of the packet.
> > +- ``l2_ok``: all layer 2 HW integrity checks passed.
> > +- ``l3_ok``: all layer 3 HW integrity checks passed.
> > +- ``l4_ok``: all layer 4 HW integrity checks passed.
> > +- ``l2_crc_ok``: layer 2 crc check passed.
> > +- ``ipv4_csum_ok``: ipv4 checksum check passed.
> > +- ``l4_csum_ok``: layer 4 checksum check passed.
> > +- ``l3_len_ok``: the layer 3 len is smaller than the frame len.
> > +
> > Actions
> > ~~~~~~~
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > index a0b907994a..986f749384 100644
> > --- a/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/rel_notes/release_21_05.rst
> > @@ -168,6 +168,11 @@ New Features
> > the events across multiple stages.
> > * This also reduced the scheduling overhead on a event device.
> >
> > +* **Added packet integrity match to RTE flow rules.**
> > +
> > + * Added ``PACKET_INTEGRITY_CHECKS`` flow item.
> > + * Added ``rte_flow_item_integrity`` data structure.
> > +
> > * **Updated testpmd.**
> >
> > * Added a command line option to configure forced speed for Ethernet
> port.
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > index c476a0f59d..446ff48140 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > @@ -551,6 +551,17 @@ enum rte_flow_item_type {
> > * See struct rte_flow_item_geneve_opt
> > */
> > RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_GENEVE_OPT,
> > +
> > + /**
> > + * [META]
> > + *
> > + * Matches on packet integrity.
> > + * For some devices application needs to enable integration checks in
> HW
> > + * before using this item.
> > + *
> > + * See struct rte_flow_item_integrity.
> > + */
> > + RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_INTEGRITY,
> > };
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -1685,6 +1696,44 @@ rte_flow_item_geneve_opt_mask = {
> > };
> > #endif
> >
> > +__extension__
> > +struct rte_flow_item_integrity {
> > + uint32_t level;
> > + /**< Packet encapsulation level the item should apply to.
> > + * @see rte_flow_action_rss
> > + */
> > + union {
> > + struct {
> > + uint64_t packet_ok:1;
> > + /** The packet is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> > + uint64_t l2_ok:1;
> > + /**< L2 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> > + uint64_t l3_ok:1;
> > + /**< L3 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> > + uint64_t l4_ok:1;
> > + /**< L4 layer is valid after passing all HW checks. */
> > + uint64_t l2_crc_ok:1;
> > + /**< L2 layer crc is valid. */
> > + uint64_t ipv4_csum_ok:1;
> > + /**< IPv4 layer checksum is valid. */
> > + uint64_t l4_csum_ok:1;
> > + /**< L4 layer checksum is valid. */
> > + uint64_t l3_len_ok:1;
> > + /**< The l3 len is smaller than the frame len. */
> > + uint64_t reserved:56;
> > + };
> > + uint64_t value;
> > + };
> > +};
> > +
> > +#ifndef __cplusplus
> > +static const struct rte_flow_item_integrity
> > +rte_flow_item_integrity_mask = {
> > + .level = 0,
> > + .value = 0,
> > +};
> > +#endif
> > +
> > /**
> > * Matching pattern item definition.
> > *
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-15 15:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-05 18:04 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add packet integrity checks Ori Kam
2021-04-06 7:39 ` Jerin Jacob
2021-04-07 10:32 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-07 11:01 ` Jerin Jacob
2021-04-07 22:15 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-08 7:44 ` Jerin Jacob
2021-04-11 4:12 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-11 6:03 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-13 15:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/2] " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-13 15:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-13 15:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-13 17:15 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-14 12:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/2] add packet integrity checks Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 12:56 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 13:27 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-14 13:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-14 12:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 16:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] add packet integrity checks Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 16:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 17:24 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-15 15:10 ` Ori Kam [this message]
2021-04-15 15:25 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-15 16:46 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-16 7:43 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-18 8:15 ` Gregory Etelson
2021-04-18 18:00 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-14 16:09 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-14 16:26 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/2] add packet integrity checks Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-18 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-18 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-18 18:11 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-18 19:24 ` Gregory Etelson
2021-04-18 21:30 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-18 15:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 8:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/2] add packet integrity checks Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 8:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 8:47 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-19 8:29 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 11:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 0/2] add packet integrity checks Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-19 12:08 ` Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 12:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 12:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 14:09 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-19 16:34 ` Thomas Monjalon
2021-04-19 17:06 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-19 12:44 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-19 14:09 ` Ajit Khaparde
2021-04-08 8:04 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add packet integrity checks Andrew Rybchenko
2021-04-08 11:39 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-09 8:08 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-04-11 6:42 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-11 17:30 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-11 17:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-11 17:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] ethdev: " Gregory Etelson
2021-04-12 17:36 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-12 19:26 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-12 23:31 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-13 7:12 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-13 8:03 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-13 8:18 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-13 8:30 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-13 10:21 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-13 17:28 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-11 17:34 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item Gregory Etelson
2021-04-12 17:49 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-13 7:53 ` Ori Kam
2021-04-13 8:14 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-13 11:36 ` Ori Kam
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=DM6PR12MB49873003C925ABA131AF5068D64D9@DM6PR12MB4987.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
--to=orika@nvidia.com \
--cc=ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=getelson@nvidia.com \
--cc=jerinj@marvell.com \
--cc=jerinjacobk@gmail.com \
--cc=matan@nvidia.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=rasland@nvidia.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=viacheslavo@nvidia.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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.