On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 8:43 AM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 4:06 AM, Jakub Kicinski
> <jakub.kicin...@netronome.com> wrote:
>> From: John Hurley <john.hur...@netronome.com>
>>
>> Pass information to the match offload on whether or not the repr is the
>> ingress or egress dev. Only accept tunnel matches if repr is the egress dev.
>>
>> This means rules such as the following are successfully offloaded:
>> tc .. add dev vxlan0 .. enc_dst_port 4789 .. action redirect dev nfp_p0
>>
>> While rules such as the following are rejected:
>> tc .. add dev nfp_p0 .. enc_dst_port 4789 .. action redirect dev vxlan0
>
> cool
>
>
>> Also reject non tunnel flows that are offloaded to an egress dev.
>> Non tunnel matches assume that the offload dev is the ingress port and
>> offload a match accordingly.
>
> not following on the "Also" here, see below
>
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/offload.c
>> b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/offload.c
>> index a0193e0c24a0..f5d73b83dcc2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/offload.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/flower/offload.c
>> @@ -131,7 +131,8 @@ static bool nfp_flower_check_higher_than_mac(struct
>> tc_cls_flower_offload *f)
>>
>> static int
>> nfp_flower_calculate_key_layers(struct nfp_fl_key_ls *ret_key_ls,
>> - struct tc_cls_flower_offload *flow)
>> + struct tc_cls_flower_offload *flow,
>> + bool egress)
>> {
>> struct flow_dissector_key_basic *mask_basic = NULL;
>> struct flow_dissector_key_basic *key_basic = NULL;
>> @@ -167,6 +168,9 @@ nfp_flower_calculate_key_layers(struct nfp_fl_key_ls
>> *ret_key_ls,
>> skb_flow_dissector_target(flow->dissector,
>>
>> FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_CONTROL,
>> flow->key);
>> + if (!egress)
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> +
>> if (mask_enc_ctl->addr_type != 0xffff ||
>> enc_ctl->addr_type != FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_IPV4_ADDRS)
>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> @@ -194,6 +198,9 @@ nfp_flower_calculate_key_layers(struct nfp_fl_key_ls
>> *ret_key_ls,
>>
>> key_layer |= NFP_FLOWER_LAYER_VXLAN;
>> key_size += sizeof(struct nfp_flower_vxlan);
>> + } else if (egress) {
>> + /* Reject non tunnel matches offloaded to egress repr. */
>> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> }
>
> with these two hunks we get: egress <- IFF -> encap match, right?
>
> (1) we can't offload the egress way if there isn't matching on encap headers
> (2) we can't go the matching on encap headers way if we are not egress
>
yes, this is correct.
With the block code and egdev offload, we do not have access to the
ingress netdev when doing an offload.
We need to use the encap headers (especially the enc_port) to
distinguish the type of tunnel used and, therefore, require that the
encap matches be present before offloading.
> what other cases are rejected by this logic?
>
Yes, some other cases may be rejected (like veth mentioned below).
However, this is better than allowing rules to be incorrectly
offloaded (as could have happened before these changes).
Currently, we are looking at offloading flows on other ingress devices
such as bonds so this will require a change to the driver code here.
IMO, the cleanest solution will also require tc core changes to either
avoid egdev offload or to have access to the ingress netdev of a rule.
> e.g If we add a rule with SW device (veth. tap) being the ingress, and
> HW device (vf rep)
> being the egress while not using skip_sw (just no flags == both) we
> get the TC stack
> go along the egdev callback from the vf rep hw device and add an
> (uplink --> vf rep) rule
> which will not be rejected if there is matching on tunnel headers, it
> will also not be rejected
> by some driver logic as the one we discussed to identify and ignore
> rules that are attempted to being added twice.
>
> Or.
