Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:46:58AM CEST, pab...@redhat.com wrote: >On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 11:17 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:29:35AM CEST, pab...@redhat.com wrote: >> > So it looks like the H/W offload hook will still be called with the >> > same arguments in both case, and 'bad' rule will still be pushed to the >> > H/W as the driver itself has no way to distinct between the two >> > scenarios. >> >> Why "bad"? > >Such rule is coped differently by the SW and the HW data path. > >a rule like: > >tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent ffff: flower \ > enc_key_id 102 enc_dst_port 4789 src_ip 3.4.5.6 skip_hw \ > action action mirred redirect eth0_vf_1 > >will match 0 packets, while: > >tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent ffff: flower \ > enc_key_id 102 enc_dst_port 4789 src_ip 3.4.5.6 skip_sw \ > action action mirred redirect eth0_vf_1 > >[just flipped 'skip_sw' and 'skip_hw' ] >will match the vxlan-tunneled packets. I understand that one of the >design goal for the h/w offload path is being consistent with the sw >one, but that does not hold in the above scenario.
Sure, the consistency is important. Howcome "skip_hw" won't match and "skip_sw" will match? What's different? > >> Regarding the distinction, driver knows if user add a rule directly to >> the eth0, or if the eth0 is egress device in the action. Those are 2 >> separete driver entrypoints - of course, talking about code with my >> changes. > >ok, but than each driver should catch the scenario "rule with tunnel >match over non tunnel device" and cope with them properly - never match >it - why don't simply avoiding pushing such rules to the H/W ? > >Cheers, > >Paolo
