Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) replied on github web page: include/odp/api/spec/packet.h line 74 @@ -1140,6 +1179,82 @@ int odp_packet_move_data(odp_packet_t pkt, uint32_t dst_offset, */ /** + * Packet parse parameters + */ +typedef struct odp_packet_parse_param_t { + /** Protocol header at parse starting point. Valid values for this + * field are: ODP_PROTO_ETH, ODP_PROTO_IPV4, ODP_PROTO_IPV6. */ + odp_proto_t proto; + + /** Continue parsing until this layer. Must be the same or higher + * layer than the layer of 'proto'. */ + odp_proto_layer_t layer; + + /** Flags to control payload data checks up to the selected parse + * layer. Checksum checking status can be queried for each packet with + * odp_packet_l3_chksum_status() and odp_packet_l4_chksum_status(). + */ + union { + struct { + /** Check IPv4 header checksum */ + uint32_t ipv4_chksum : 1; + + /** Check UDP checksum */ + uint32_t udp_chksum : 1; + + /** Check TCP checksum */ + uint32_t tcp_chksum : 1;
Comment: +1 since other checksum APIs refer to L3 and L4 rather than specific protocols. > Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote: > What about just `l3_chksum`, and `l4_chksum`? >> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >> Now that we have a `param` struct we should have an >> `odp_packet_parse_param_init()` API as well for completeness. >>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote: >>> @Bill-Fischofer-Linaro Because it is a parsing error, if lower layer >>> provides us IP version that does not correspond to the in-packet version. >>> We should detect that, rather than silently parsing this header. >>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >>>> I'm not sure why an API named `odp_packet_parse()` needs help here. It's >>>> purpose, after all, is to parse packets and determining IPv4 vs IPv6 is >>>> part of that activity. Moreover, the only way an application can inspect >>>> the IP header is to access it via other ODP API calls, so I don't see how >>>> asking the application to do this is any better than having the >>>> `odp_packet_parse()` implementation do this itself. What's the purpose of >>>> having a parse API in that case since clearly the application could parse >>>> the entire packet "by hand" as well. >>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote: >>>>> Failure needs to be defined in a more precise way (and maybe for a single >>>>> packet case). I assume that it means internal ODP error, rather than just >>>>> packet with wrong headers. What happens in multi-packet case if failure >>>>> occurs in the middle of parsing? >>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote: >>>>>> @psavol Also for multi-packet parsing, we can change `proto` to be an >>>>>> array, allowing applications to easily intermix IPv4 and IPv6 packets. >>>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote: >>>>>>> @psavol yes. I just wanted to focus on cases, when passing packet with >>>>>>> wrong protocol is an error. E.g. IPv6 packet inside IPsec packet with >>>>>>> NH = 4. So it is not a question of selecting proper L3 parser, but >>>>>>> rather a question of nailing down error/malicious packets. >>>>>>>> Petri Savolainen(psavol) wrote: >>>>>>>> It's there to enable application to call parsing in parts - e.g. first >>>>>>>> up to IP and then continue from L4. But since IP and transport >>>>>>>> protocols are tied together with pseudo headers, it's cleaner to >>>>>>>> remove L4 as a starting point. >>>>>>>>> Petri Savolainen(psavol) wrote: >>>>>>>>> First bits of an IP header marks the version. So, it would be trivial >>>>>>>>> for both app and implementation to read the version from the data. >>>>>>>>> Common IP define is easier for application when a burst of packets >>>>>>>>> may contain both v4 and v6 mixed. Application does not need to sort >>>>>>>>> packets into two arrays (one for v4 and other for v6) but just pass >>>>>>>>> the entire array for parsing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are three ways to define the enumeration: IP, IPv4+IPv6, >>>>>>>>> IP+IPv4+IPv6. I'm OK with any of those. IPv4+IPv6 would be a bit more >>>>>>>>> robust since version information comes from two sources. >>>>>>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I felt easier to reparse both L3 and L4 headers in IPsec case, >>>>>>>>>> especially since transport mode ESP can en/decrypt some of L3 >>>>>>>>>> headers in IPv6 case. >>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> @Bill-Fischofer-Linaro In IPsec case Next Header field will contain >>>>>>>>>>> 4 for IPv4 and 41 for IPv6. >>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> That might be overly complicated since until a decrypted tunnel >>>>>>>>>>>> mode IPsec packet is parsed you don't know whether it's IPv4 or >>>>>>>>>>>> IPv6. It's parsing that makes that determination. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> @lumag IPsec operating in transport mode is, I'd imagine, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> main use case here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the usecase for parsing a packet starting from L4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> header? Also there are several (lots) of other L4 protocols. Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we want to support them all here? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov(lumag) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe it would be better to split this into separate IPv4 and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IPv6 packets. It would be an error to pass IPv6 packet with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ethtype (or IP tunnel type) being set to IPv4. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petri Savolainen(psavol) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A vector of packets is CPU vector instructions friendly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Petri Savolainen(psavol) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The use case is mentioned in log message: parse after >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decrypt/IP reassembly. Application has recreated an inner >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> packet and needs to parse it before continue. This is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently SW parse which may be accelerated with CPU vector >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions, etc. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's the use case for a multi() form of this API? Might >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VPP use it? Perhaps Sachin can comment? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We had considered an `odp_packet_parse()` function some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time back but it was rejected as something that would not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fit well with hardware parsers. What's changed? https://github.com/Linaro/odp/pull/273#discussion_r149697464 updated_at 2017-11-08 15:14:08