Petri Savolainen(psavol) replied on github web page: include/odp/api/spec/packet.h line 83 @@ -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; + + } check; + + /** All check bits. This can be used to set/clear all flags. */ + uint32_t all_check; + }; + +} odp_packet_parse_param_t; +
Comment: Param init on fast path is a bit overkill. However, application could call it once and store the result. So, it could avoid extra function call for every packet. So, I'll add it. > Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: > `return i;` if we adopt the RC == number of successful packets parsed > convention. >> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >> For consistency with other `odp_xxx_multi()` APIs, the RC should indicate >> the number of input packets that were successfully processed. >>> muvarov wrote >>> it looks like 2 enums are not needed here. odp_proto_layet_t layer_start; >>> and odp_proto_layet_t layer_end; and one enum for layers. >>>> muvarov wrote >>>> maybe return number of correctly parsed packets? And say that parsing >>>> always starts from be beginning of array. >>>>> Bill Fischofer(Bill-Fischofer-Linaro) wrote: >>>>> +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_r149897971 updated_at 2017-11-09 09:00:28