> -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:19 PM > To: Ori Kam <[email protected]>; Dekel Peled <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Shahaf Shuler <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix MPLSoUDP encapsulation > > On 11/20/2018 8:23 AM, Ori Kam wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: dev <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Dekel Peled > >> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:55 PM > >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; > >> [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected]; Ori Kam <[email protected]>; Shahaf Shuler > >> <[email protected]>; Dekel Peled <[email protected]> > >> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix MPLSoUDP encapsulation > >> > >> Set MPLS label value in appropriate location at mplsoudp_encap_conf, > >> so it is correctly copied to rte_flow_item_mpls. > >> > >> Fixes: a1191d39cb57 ("app/testpmd: add MPLSoUDP encapsulation") > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 4 ++-- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c > >> index 1275074..40e64cc 100644 > >> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c > >> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c > >> @@ -15804,10 +15804,10 @@ static void > >> cmd_set_mplsoudp_encap_parsed(void *parsed_result, > >> struct cmd_set_mplsoudp_encap_result *res = parsed_result; > >> union { > >> uint32_t mplsoudp_label; > >> - uint8_t label[3]; > >> + uint8_t label[4]; > >> } id = { > >> .mplsoudp_label = > >> - rte_cpu_to_be_32(res->label) & RTE_BE32(0x00ffffff), > >> + rte_cpu_to_be_32(res->label<<4) & > >> RTE_BE32(0x00ffffff), > >> }; > >> > >> if (strcmp(res->mplsoudp, "mplsoudp_encap") == 0) > >> -- > >> 1.8.3.1 > > > > Acked-by: Ori Kam <[email protected]> > > Hi Ori, Dekel, > > What is the scope of this patch? Briefly how critical it is and what will be > broken and what is exposure of it?
The only issue is that we are setting incorrect MPLS label. As defined by the MPLS spec the label is 20 bits, so this patch simply pushes the label to the correct place. I don't think that there any exposure from this patch. Best, Ori
