On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 3:31 PM Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 3:26 PM > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > Cc: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>; qemu-dev <qemu- > > de...@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer protocol for > > filter- > > mirror/redirector > > > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 3:20 PM Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 2:42 PM > > > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > > > Cc: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>; qemu-dev <qemu- > > > > de...@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer protocol > > > > for filter- mirror/redirector > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 10:50 AM Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:42 AM > > > > > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > > > > > Cc: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>; qemu-dev <qemu- > > > > > > de...@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer > > > > > > protocol for filter- mirror/redirector > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 4:43 PM Zhang, Chen > > > > > > <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 4:30 PM > > > > > > > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > > > > > > > Cc: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>; qemu-dev > > <qemu- > > > > > > > > de...@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer > > > > > > > > protocol for filter- mirror/redirector > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 1:29 PM Zhang, Chen > > > > > > > > <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 12:03 PM > > > > > > > > > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>; qemu-dev > > > > <qemu- > > > > > > > > > > de...@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize > > > > > > > > > > transfer protocol for filter- mirror/redirector > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:27 AM Zhang, Chen > > > > > > > > > > <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 11:17 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com>; Markus > > > > > > > > > > > > Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: qemu-dev <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian > > > > > > > > > > > > <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize > > > > > > > > > > > > transfer protocol for filter- mirror/redirector > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 在 2021/11/4 下午1:37, Zhang, Chen 写道: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I wonder if we need to introduce new > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> parameter, e.g force_vnet_hdr here, then we > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> can always send vnet_hdr > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it > > > > > > > > > > is enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Otherwise the "vnet_hdr_support" seems > > meaningless. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, Current "vnet_hdr_support" default > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> enabled, and vnet_hdr_len > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> already forced from attached nf->netdev. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Maybe we can introduce a new parameter > > > > > > > > "force_no_vnet_hdr" > > > > > > > > > > here > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> make the vnet_hdr_len always keep 0. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If you think OK, I will update it in next version. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Let me explain, if I was not wrong: > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> "vnet_hdr_support" means whether or not to send > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vnet header > > > > > > > > > > length. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> If vnet_hdr_support=false, we won't send the > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vnet > > > > header. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> This looks the same as you "force_no_vent_hdr" > > above. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Yes, It was. But this series changed it. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Current "vnet_hdr_support" can't decide whether > > > > > > > > > > > > >> send vnet header length, we always send it even 0. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It will avoid sender/receiver transfer protocol parse > > issues: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> When sender data with the vnet header length, but > > > > > > > > > > > > >> receiver can't enable the "vnet_hdr_support". > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Filters will auto setup vnet_hdr_len as local > > > > > > > > > > > > >> nf->netdev and found the issue when get different > > > > > > > > > > > > >> vnet_hdr_len from other > > > > > > > > filters. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> And my "force_vnet_hdr" seems duplicated with > > > > > > > > > > > > vnet_hdr_support=true. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> So it looks to me we can leave the mirror code > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> as is and just change the compare? (depends on > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> the mgmt to set a correct > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> vnet_hdr_support) > > > > > > > > > > > > >> OK, I will keep the > > > > > > > > > > > > >> filter-mirror/filter-redirector/filter-rewriter > > > > > > > > > > > > >> same as this version. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> For the colo-compare module, It will get primary > > > > > > > > > > > > >> node's filter data's vnet_hdr_len as the local > > > > > > > > > > > > >> value, And compare with secondary node's, because > > > > > > > > > > > > >> it is not attached any > > > > > > nf->netdev. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> So, it looks compare module's "vnet_hdr_support" > > > > > > > > > > > > >> been auto configuration from the filter transport > > protocol. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> If the "force_vnet_hdr" means hard code a > > > > > > > > > > > > >> compare's local vnet_hdr_len rather than come from > > input filter's data? > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason/Markus, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rethink about it, How about keep the original > > > > > > "vnet_hdr_support" > > > > > > > > > > > > > function, And add a new optional parameter > > > > "auto_vnet_hdr" > > > > > > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > > > > > filters/compare? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a way but rethink of the whole thing. I wonder > > > > > > > > > > > > what if we just enable "vnet_hdr_support" by default > > > > > > > > > > > > for filter and > > > > > > > > > > > > colo- > > > > > > > > compare? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's works by default for user use -device > > > > > > > > > > > virtio-net-pci and > > > > e1000... > > > > > > > > > > > But it can't resolve this series motivation, how to > > > > > > > > > > > fix/check user > > > > > > > > > > configuration issue: > > > > > > > > > > > For example user enable " vnet_hdr_support " > > > > > > > > > > > filter-mirror and disable " vnet_hdr_support" > > > > > > > > > > > filter-redirector And connect both filter modules by > > > > > > > > > > chardev socket. > > > > > > > > > > > In this case guest will get wrong network workload and > > > > > > > > > > > filters didn’t perceive any abnormalities, but in > > > > > > > > > > > fact, the whole system is no longer > > > > > > > > > > working. > > > > > > > > > > > This series will report error and try to correct it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is how "auto_vnet_hdr" help in this case. > > > > > > > > > > It's a new parameter which may lead to more wrong > > configuration? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, the "auto_vnet_hdr" will fix most the wrong > > > > > > > > > configuration issues as > > > > > > > > "vnet_hdr_support" correct setting. > > > > > > > > > When we enable the "auto_vnet_hdr", the original > > > > > > "vnet_hdr_support" > > > > > > > > will no effect. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So it looks to me it still depends on the management to set > > > > > > "auto_vnet_hdr" > > > > > > > > to be true? (or make it enabled by default) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I plan to make "auto_vnet_hdr" enabled by default in next > > version. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we can do that, isn't it much more simpler to make > > > > > > > > vnet_hdr_support by default? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, For compatibility filters and COLO still work with the > > > > > > > original > > > > > > "vnet_hdr_support". > > > > > > > For new users, they can enable the new "auto_vnet_hdr" to > > > > > > > avoid some > > > > > > issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > Question still, so we have > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) enable vnet_hdr_support by default > > > > > > 2) add auto_vnet_hdr and enable it by default > > > > > > > > > > > > Using 1) seems much more simpler and can solve this issue. If we > > > > > > depends on the default behaviour, it should be almost the same. > > > > > > If we want to teach the mgmt, both should work. Any other > > > > > > advantages of > > > > 2)? > > > > > > > > > > Using 1) we can't ensure user configure parts of module by itself. > > > > (vnet_hdr_support = off). > > > > > In this case, filter data already wrong and the filters can't > > > > > report any > > > > transfer error here. > > > > > > > > So I think the point is we can't ensure the user configure parts of > > > > module in any case even if auto_vnet_hdr is introduced. E.g user can > > > > choose to disable it manually. That's why I think it should not > > > > differ too much from making vnet_hdr_support enabled by default. > > > > > > Yes, you are right. The "auto_vnet_hdr" just can fix part of user > > > configure > > issue. > > > And I think this series make the filters better, it make user know > > > filters have some issues when they have wrong manual > > configuration(current code not). > > > > I think if you stick to the change, I wonder if something like > > "vnet_hdr_support=auto" would be better? (not sure if it's too late to > > change) > > It's OK for me. I will update the V6. > By the way, have any update about the queued filter passthrough series? > Need I do something?
If I'm not wrong, Markus has some concern so I drop it from the queue. Thanks > > Thanks > Chen > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Using 2) filters will find/report this issue and try to fix it > > > > > from local > > > > vnet_hdr_len. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think I may miss something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >