On 6/29/20 2:21 PM, Eli Britstein wrote:
>
> On 6/29/2020 3:38 AM, Ilya Maximets wrote:
>> On 6/21/20 1:19 PM, Eli Britstein wrote:
>>> For OVS rule of the form "eth type is 0x1234 / end", rule is offloaded
>>> in the form of "eth / end", which is incorrect. Fix it.
>>>
>>> Fixes: e8a2b5bf92bb ("netdev-dpdk: implement flow offload with rte flow")
>>> Signed-off-by: Eli Britstein <el...@mellanox.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Roni Bar Yanai <ron...@mellanox.com>
>>> ---
>>> lib/netdev-offload-dpdk.c | 5 +++--
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/netdev-offload-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-offload-dpdk.c
>>> index e8b8d6464..e68b6549c 100644
>>> --- a/lib/netdev-offload-dpdk.c
>>> +++ b/lib/netdev-offload-dpdk.c
>>> @@ -860,7 +860,8 @@ parse_flow_match(struct flow_patterns *patterns,
>>> /* Eth */
>>> if (!eth_addr_is_zero(match->wc.masks.dl_src) ||
>>> - !eth_addr_is_zero(match->wc.masks.dl_dst)) {
>>> + !eth_addr_is_zero(match->wc.masks.dl_dst) ||
>>> + match->wc.masks.dl_type) {
>> While calling from the userspace datapath, we always have a match on dl_type.
>> This means that it's not possible to hit the 'else' condition.
>> I'm worried about the usecase described there. It's hard to track changes
>> in i40e_flow.c. Can someone test this with XL710?
>
> Yes, that's true. I think we should have it for consistency with the rest of
> the code, and also just in case.
>
> Regarding the XL710 comment - I think it should not have been merged into OVS
> in the first place. If it is an issue with XL710, the relevant PMD should
> handle it, and not OVS. I just kept it in case I miss something here. Do you
> think it's OK to remove it?
Thinking about correctness, if dl_type match requested and we're
matching any L2 packets instead, this does not sound good. In
this case we might perform incorrect set of actions for a packet
that should be handled differently. Also, we might end up having
several flows with the same match and different actions in case the
only dufference was in dl_type, which is not a good thing too.
So, from that point of view it's better to remove the 'else' branch
entirely. Good reasoning should be described in a commit message.
For the 'if' condition: You could do 'masks.dl_type' check first,
i.e. before checking eth addresses, this way we will save a few cpu
cycles in most cases.
>
>>
>>> struct rte_flow_item_eth *spec, *mask;
>>> spec = xzalloc(sizeof *spec);
>>> @@ -876,6 +877,7 @@ parse_flow_match(struct flow_patterns *patterns,
>>> memset(&consumed_masks->dl_dst, 0, sizeof
>>> consumed_masks->dl_dst);
>>> memset(&consumed_masks->dl_src, 0, sizeof consumed_masks->dl_src);
>>> + consumed_masks->dl_type = 0;
>>> add_flow_pattern(patterns, RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ETH, spec, mask);
>>> } else {
>>> @@ -888,7 +890,6 @@ parse_flow_match(struct flow_patterns *patterns,
>>> */
>>> add_flow_pattern(patterns, RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ETH, NULL, NULL);
>> Actually looking at i40e_flow.c, it seems like this pattern will be rejected.
>> But I'm not sure.
>>
>>> }
>>> - consumed_masks->dl_type = 0;
>>> /* VLAN */
>>> if (match->wc.masks.vlans[0].tci && match->flow.vlans[0].tci) {
>>>
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
d...@openvswitch.org
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
