On 11/20/2018 6:51 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> This patch adds a function to translate the ethtool_rx_flow_spec
> structure to the flow_rule representation.
>
> This allows us to reuse code from the driver side given that both flower
> and ethtool_rx_flow interfaces use the same representation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pa...@netfilter.org>
> ---
> v3: Suggested by Jiri Pirko:
> - Add struct ethtool_rx_flow_rule, keep placeholder to private
> dissector information.
> Reported by Manish Chopra:
> - Fix incorrect dissector user_keys flags.
>
> include/linux/ethtool.h | 10 +++
> net/core/ethtool.c | 189
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 199 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/ethtool.h b/include/linux/ethtool.h
> index afd9596ce636..99849e0858b2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ethtool.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ethtool.h
> @@ -400,4 +400,14 @@ struct ethtool_ops {
> void (*get_ethtool_phy_stats)(struct net_device *,
> struct ethtool_stats *, u64 *);
> };
> +
> +struct ethtool_rx_flow_rule {
> + struct flow_rule *rule;
> + unsigned long priv[0];
> +};
> +
> +struct ethtool_rx_flow_rule *
> +ethtool_rx_flow_rule_alloc(const struct ethtool_rx_flow_spec *fs);
> +void ethtool_rx_flow_rule_free(struct ethtool_rx_flow_rule *rule);
> +
> #endif /* _LINUX_ETHTOOL_H */
> diff --git a/net/core/ethtool.c b/net/core/ethtool.c
> index d05402868575..e679d6478371 100644
> --- a/net/core/ethtool.c
> +++ b/net/core/ethtool.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
> #include <linux/sched/signal.h>
> #include <linux/net.h>
> #include <net/xdp_sock.h>
> +#include <net/flow_offload.h>
>
> /*
> * Some useful ethtool_ops methods that're device independent.
> @@ -2808,3 +2809,191 @@ int dev_ethtool(struct net *net, struct ifreq *ifr)
>
> return rc;
> }
> +
> +struct ethtool_rx_flow_key {
> + struct flow_dissector_key_basic basic;
> + union {
> + struct flow_dissector_key_ipv4_addrs ipv4;
> + struct flow_dissector_key_ipv6_addrs ipv6;
> + };
> + struct flow_dissector_key_ports tp;
> + struct flow_dissector_key_ip ip;
> +} __aligned(BITS_PER_LONG / 8); /* Ensure that we can do comparisons as
> longs. */
> +
> +struct ethtool_rx_flow_match {
> + struct flow_dissector dissector;
> + struct ethtool_rx_flow_key key;
> + struct ethtool_rx_flow_key mask;
> +};
> +
> +struct ethtool_rx_flow_rule *
> +ethtool_rx_flow_rule_alloc(const struct ethtool_rx_flow_spec *fs)
This is more than alloc, it's allocate and map, no reason to split the
two operations AFAICT, but the name could be improved, how about
alloc_from()?
> +{
> + static struct in6_addr zero_addr = {};
> + struct ethtool_rx_flow_match *match;
> + struct ethtool_rx_flow_rule *flow;
> + struct flow_action_entry *act;
> +
> + flow = kzalloc(sizeof(struct ethtool_rx_flow_rule) +
> + sizeof(struct ethtool_rx_flow_match), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!flow)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + /* ethtool_rx supports only one single action per rule. */
> + flow->rule = flow_rule_alloc(1);
> + if (!flow->rule) {
> + kfree(flow);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> +
> + match = (struct ethtool_rx_flow_match *)flow->priv;
> + flow->rule->match.dissector = &match->dissector;
> + flow->rule->match.mask = &match->mask;
> + flow->rule->match.key = &match->key;
> +
> + match->mask.basic.n_proto = 0xffff;
> +
> + switch (fs->flow_type & ~FLOW_EXT) {
> + case TCP_V4_FLOW:
> + case UDP_V4_FLOW: {
> + const struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec *v4_spec, *v4_m_spec;
> +
> + match->key.basic.n_proto = htons(ETH_P_IP);
> +
> + v4_spec = &fs->h_u.tcp_ip4_spec;
> + v4_m_spec = &fs->m_u.tcp_ip4_spec;
> +
> + if (v4_m_spec->ip4src) {
> + match->key.ipv4.src = v4_spec->ip4src;
> + match->mask.ipv4.src = v4_m_spec->ip4src;
> + }
> + if (v4_m_spec->ip4dst) {
> + match->key.ipv4.dst = v4_spec->ip4dst;
> + match->mask.ipv4.dst = v4_m_spec->ip4dst;
> + }
I got confused a while ago between the ethtool ntuple and nfc semantics,
and I can't remember if the following is true:
- bits set to 1 indicate a match and bit set to 0 indicate a don't care
for nfc
- bits set to 0 indicate a match and bit set to 1 indicate a don't care
for ntuple
Depending on the answer that could mean that this check on a zero
address may have to change.
> + if (v4_m_spec->ip4src ||
> + v4_m_spec->ip4dst) {
> + match->dissector.used_keys |=
> + (1 << FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_IPV4_ADDRS);
Can you use BIT() here (and likewise for every one below).
[snip]
> +
> + return flow;
What about the extended fields and non-IP protocols?
--
Florian
