-----Original Message----- From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 11:24 AM To: Salem Sol <sal...@nvidia.com>; Jiawei(Jonny) Wang <jiaw...@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org Cc: Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>; Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun...@intel.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/8] app/testpmd: store VXLAN/NVGRE encap data globally
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments On 4/7/2021 9:19 AM, Salem Sol wrote: > Hi Ferruh, > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> > Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 5:44 PM > To: Jiawei(Jonny) Wang <jiaw...@nvidia.com>; Salem Sol > <sal...@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>; Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun...@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/8] app/testpmd: store VXLAN/NVGRE > encap data globally > > External email: Use caution opening links or attachments > > > On 4/1/2021 5:13 AM, Jiawei(Jonny) Wang wrote: >> Hello Ferruh, >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2021 8:08 PM >>> To: Salem Sol <sal...@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org >>> Cc: Jiawei(Jonny) Wang <jiaw...@nvidia.com>; Ori Kam >>> <or...@nvidia.com>; Xiaoyun Li <xiaoyun...@intel.com> >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/8] app/testpmd: store >>> VXLAN/NVGRE encap data globally >>> >>> On 3/17/2021 9:26 AM, Salem Sol wrote: >>>> From: Jiawei Wang <jiaw...@nvidia.com> >>>> >>>> With the current code the VXLAN/NVGRE parsing routine stored the >>>> configuration of the header on stack, this might lead to >>>> overwriting the data on the stack. >>>> >>>> This patch stores the external data of vxlan and nvgre encap into >>>> global data as a pre-step to supporting vxlan and nvgre encap as a >>>> sample actions. >>>> >>> >>> I didn't get what was on stack and moved in to the global data, can >>> you please elaborate. >>> >> >> This patch split the function and saved input data into input parameter: >> So it mentioned here "pre-step" for next store the data of vxlan/nvgre into >> global. >> >> The global var for sample action is defined in: >> (https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpa >> t >> ches.dpdk.org%2Fproject%2Fdpdk%2Fpatch%2F20210317092610.71000-5-salem >> s >> %40nvidia.com%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csalems%40nvidia.com%7Cd9baadbc48f >> c >> 44caf4fc08d8f90a7553%7C43083d15727340c1b7db39efd9ccc17a%7C0%7C0%7C637 >> 5 >> 33170601193210%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2 >> l >> uMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=olwLyRnHnM7TyKDF >> I >> xVH3Dj6KhWtUzdXgAyGgON4M9M%3D&reserved=0) >> struct action_vxlan_encap_data >> sample_vxlan_encap[RAW_SAMPLE_CONFS_MAX_NUM]; >> > > Commit log says: > > " > This patch stores the external data of vxlan and nvgre encap into global data > as a pre-step to supporting vxlan and nvgre encap as a sample actions. > " > > It says this patch does storing into the global data, but as far as I can see > from code and above description, this patch is just preparation for it. > I can see there is a new version which has same commit log, can you please > update it in new version? > > I will update in the next series. > >>> For example for nvgre, 'action_nvgre_encap_data' is pointer in stack >>> but the actual object is 'ctx->object', so it is not really in the stack. >>> >> >> After call 'set sample 0 nvgre .. ', the data be stored into >> 'ctx->object', the 'ctx->object' will be reused for the following CLI >> command, After that, while we try to use previous 'sample action' to fetch >> nvgre data, these data may be lost. >> >> For sample action, use global data can save the previous nvgre >> configurations data. >> > > Got it, the target is to use "set sample_actions ..." testpmd command to > store vxlan/nvgre encap sample actions. > For record, can you please document what was the way to the same before this > support, can you please document the old testpmd command. > > Can you please elaborate regarding where did you want this documentation? > Prior to this support it is already documented, in > http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/1617244796-358287-1-git-sen > d-email-jiaw...@nvidia.com/ > With the "raw_encap" > > I was just thinking putting it in the commit log, for reference. To record > how it was previously done. Does this seem acceptable? " app/testpmd: prepare storing VXLAN/NVGRE encap data globally With the current code the VXLAN/NVGRE parsing routine stored the configuration of the header on stack, this might lead to overwriting the data on the stack. Currently having VXLAN/NVGRE encap as sample actions is done using RAW_ENCAP, for example: 1. set raw_encap 1 eth src.../ vxlan vni.../ ipv4.../ ... set sample_actions 0 raw_encap / port_id id 0 / end flow create 0 ... pattern eth / end actions sample ration 1 index 0 / jump group 1 / end The goal is to utilize the rte_flow_action_vxlan_encap and rte_flow_action_nvgre_encap for sample actions. This patch prepares storing the external data of vxlan and nvgre encap into global data as a pre-step to supporting vxlan and nvgre encap as a sample actions." >>> Tough, OK to refactor and split the function as preparation to >>> support the sample action. >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jiawei Wang <jiaw...@nvidia.com> >>> >>> <...> >>> >>>> -/** Parse VXLAN encap action. */ >>>> +/** Setup VXLAN encap configuration. */ >>>> static int >>>> -parse_vc_action_vxlan_encap(struct context *ctx, const struct >>>> token >>> *token, >>>> - const char *str, unsigned int len, >>>> - void *buf, unsigned int size) >>>> +parse_setup_vxlan_encap_data >>>> + (struct action_vxlan_encap_data >>>> +*action_vxlan_encap_data) >>> >>> Can you please fix the syntax, I guess this is done to keep within >>> in >>> 80 column limit, but from readability perspective I think better to >>> go over the 80 column a little instead of breaking the line like this. >>> >> >> Ok, will change into one line. >> >>> <...> >>> >>>> +/** Setup NVGRE encap configuration. */ static int >>>> +parse_setup_nvgre_encap_data >>>> + (struct action_nvgre_encap_data >>>> +*action_nvgre_encap_data) >>> { >>>> + if (!action_nvgre_encap_data) >>>> + return -1; >>> >>> This is a static function, and the input of it is in our control, so >>> not sure if we should verify the input here. >>> But if we need to, can you please check the return value of this >>> function where it is called. >> >> I agree with you that can remove this checking inside, since we make sure >> it's valid before call. >> >> Thanks. >> >