Hi Ori, Please see inline.
Thanks, Tejasree > -----Original Message----- > From: Tejasree Kondoj > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:37 PM > To: Ori Kam <[email protected]>; Asaf Penso <[email protected]>; Stephen > Hemminger <[email protected]> > Cc: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; Radu Nicolau > <[email protected]>; Declan Doherty <[email protected]>; > NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Ferruh Yigit > <[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko > <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran > <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya > <[email protected]>; Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item > > Please see inline. > > Thanks > Tejasree > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ori Kam <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:22 PM > > To: Asaf Penso <[email protected]>; Tejasree Kondoj > > <[email protected]>; Stephen Hemminger > > <[email protected]> > > Cc: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; Radu Nicolau > > <[email protected]>; Declan Doherty <[email protected]>; > > NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Ferruh Yigit > > <[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko > > <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran > > <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya > > <[email protected]>; Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; > > [email protected] > > Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item > > > > External Email > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hi > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Asaf Penso <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 7:09 PM > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Asaf Penso > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: Tejasree Kondoj <[email protected]> > > > >Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 11:59 AM > > > >To: Asaf Penso <[email protected]>; Stephen Hemminger > > > ><[email protected]> > > > >Cc: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; Radu Nicolau > > > ><[email protected]>; Declan Doherty > > > ><[email protected]>; Ori Kam <[email protected]>; > > > >NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Ferruh Yigit > > > ><[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko > > > ><[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran > > > ><[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya > > > ><[email protected]>; Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; > > > >[email protected] > > > >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item > > > > > > > >Please see inline. > > > > > > > >Thanks > > > >Tejasree > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Asaf Penso <[email protected]> > > > >> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 3:09 PM > > > >> To: Stephen Hemminger <[email protected]>; Tejasree > > > >Kondoj > > > >> <[email protected]> > > > >> Cc: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; Radu Nicolau > > > >> <[email protected]>; Declan Doherty > > > >> <[email protected]>; Ori Kam <[email protected]>; > > > >> NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Ferruh Yigit > > > >> <[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko > > > >> <[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran > > > >> <[email protected]>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya > > > >> <[email protected]>; Anoob Joseph <[email protected]>; > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow > > > >> item > > > >> > > > >> External Email > > > >> > > > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> -- > > > >> --- > > > >> >-----Original Message----- > > > >> >From: dev <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Stephen > > Hemminger > > > >> >Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:46 PM > > > >> >To: Tejasree Kondoj <[email protected]> > > > >> >Cc: Akhil Goyal <[email protected]>; Radu Nicolau > > > >> ><[email protected]>; Declan Doherty > > > >> ><[email protected]>; Ori Kam <[email protected]>; > > > >> >NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <[email protected]>; Ferruh > Yigit > > > >> ><[email protected]>; Andrew Rybchenko > > > >> ><[email protected]>; Jerin Jacob <[email protected]>; > > > >> >Narayana Prasad <[email protected]>; Anoob Joseph > > > >> ><[email protected]>; [email protected] > > > >> >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item > > > >> > > > > >> >On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 22:14:41 +0530 Tejasree Kondoj > > > >> ><[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> Introduce a new item type RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_SECURITY to > > > >> distinguish > > > >> >> plain packets from IPsec decrypted plain packets. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Tejasree Kondoj <[email protected]> > > > >> > > > > >> >Please provide an implementation, API's without any driver > > > >> >support should not be accepted. > > > >> > > > > >> >Also, we need a test for this. > > > > > > > >[Tejasree] We would like to defer the patch and add implementation, > > > >test case in next cycle. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> +1 > > > >> Also, I think the word SECURITY is too high-level, and if > > > >> specifically you mention here an item for IPSec, perhaps you can > > consider renaming. > > > > > > > >[Tejasree] This item matches security processed packets and not > > > >specific to IPsec. > > > >Will change commit description as follows: > > > >" Introduce a new item type RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_SECURITY to match > > > >packets that were security processed. For example, in case of > > > >inline IPsec, it can be used to distinguish plain packets from > > > >IPsec decrypted > > plain packets" > > > >Would that be fine? > > > > > > It would be more clear, yes, thank you, but in this case I suggest > > > to have a field in the spec that you can match on it. > > > For example, is it viable to know if the packet was processed by > > > IPSec and not AES? Maybe you want to have 2 flow with this new item, > > > but still differentiate between the types. > > > > Why not use mark/tag/meta to set this value? > > The application will insert a flow that sends to security and mark the > > flow with some ID then the application can check this ID. > > [Tejasree] SECURITY itself wouldn't make distinction on protocol. > It would be combined with MARK_ID to know if the packet was processed by > IPsec and not AES. > > MARK_ID alone couldn't be used as we wouldn't know if it is plain packet or > security processed plain packet. > > Rules would be as follows: > Rule #1 > [ETH] [IP] [ESP] [SPI] → [SECURITY] [MARK_ID] [END] Rule #2 [SECURITY] > [MARK_ID] [ETH] [IP] → [QUEUE] [END] > > I don't understand why in rule #1 you can't have the mark value > to also mark the security. > From your patch I understand that security is just one bit > This means that you can say if MSB bit in mark is set then it comes from > security. [Tejasree] We can use MSB of MARK_ID but that would mean we would be reserving it for security. > > > > Best, > > Ori
