Patch Detail
get:
Show a patch.
patch:
Update a patch.
put:
Update a patch.
GET /api/patches/81462/?format=api
{ "id": 81462, "url": "http://patches.dpdk.org/api/patches/81462/?format=api", "web_url": "http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/1603183709-23420-14-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com/", "project": { "id": 1, "url": "http://patches.dpdk.org/api/projects/1/?format=api", "name": "DPDK", "link_name": "dpdk", "list_id": "dev.dpdk.org", "list_email": "dev@dpdk.org", "web_url": "http://core.dpdk.org", "scm_url": "git://dpdk.org/dpdk", "webscm_url": "http://git.dpdk.org/dpdk", "list_archive_url": "https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev", "list_archive_url_format": "https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/{}", "commit_url_format": "" }, "msgid": "<1603183709-23420-14-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com>", "list_archive_url": "https://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/1603183709-23420-14-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com", "date": "2020-10-20T08:47:40", "name": "[13/62] net/sfc: add verify method to flow validate path", "commit_ref": null, "pull_url": null, "state": "superseded", "archived": true, "hash": "3bbfd8089e12152e37c9c4fd6f0fc64ad665e43d", "submitter": { "id": 607, "url": "http://patches.dpdk.org/api/people/607/?format=api", "name": "Andrew Rybchenko", "email": "arybchenko@solarflare.com" }, "delegate": null, "mbox": "http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/patch/1603183709-23420-14-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com/mbox/", "series": [ { "id": 13132, "url": "http://patches.dpdk.org/api/series/13132/?format=api", "web_url": "http://patches.dpdk.org/project/dpdk/list/?series=13132", "date": "2020-10-20T08:47:30", "name": "net/sfc: support flow API transfer rules", "version": 1, "mbox": "http://patches.dpdk.org/series/13132/mbox/" } ], "comments": "http://patches.dpdk.org/api/patches/81462/comments/", "check": "warning", "checks": "http://patches.dpdk.org/api/patches/81462/checks/", "tags": {}, "related": [], "headers": { "Return-Path": "<dev-bounces@dpdk.org>", "X-Original-To": "patchwork@inbox.dpdk.org", "Delivered-To": "patchwork@inbox.dpdk.org", "Received": [ "from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])\n\tby inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76122A04DD;\n\tTue, 20 Oct 2020 10:55:58 +0200 (CEST)", "from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])\n\tby dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD403BCD2;\n\tTue, 20 Oct 2020 10:49:33 +0200 (CEST)", "from dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com\n [148.163.129.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E9EBBA6\n for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:49:02 +0200 (CEST)", "from mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.7.65.60])\n by dispatch1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id\n 3736760058 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 08:49:02 +0000 (UTC)", "from us4-mdac16-27.ut7.mdlocal (unknown [10.7.66.59])\n by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTP id 369652009A\n for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 08:49:02 +0000 (UTC)", "from mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (unknown [10.7.66.33])\n by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id\n 287631C004F\n for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 08:48:56 +0000 (UTC)", "from webmail.solarflare.com (uk.solarflare.com [193.34.186.16])\n (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits))\n (No client certificate requested)\n by mx1-us1.ppe-hosted.com (PPE Hosted ESMTP Server) with ESMTPS id\n D30C9A80070\n for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 08:48:55 +0000 (UTC)", "from ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) by\n ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id\n 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:48:50 +0100", "from opal.uk.solarflarecom.com (10.17.10.1) by\n ukex01.SolarFlarecom.com (10.17.10.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server id\n 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:48:50 +0100", "from ukv-loginhost.uk.solarflarecom.com\n (ukv-loginhost.uk.solarflarecom.com [10.17.10.39])\n by opal.uk.solarflarecom.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 09K8mnmK030803;\n Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:48:49 +0100", "from ukv-loginhost.uk.solarflarecom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])\n by ukv-loginhost.uk.solarflarecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 622CF161978;\n Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:48:48 +0100 (BST)" ], "X-Virus-Scanned": "Proofpoint Essentials engine", "From": "Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>", "To": "<y@solarflare.com>", "CC": "<dev@dpdk.org>, Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>", "Date": "Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:47:40 +0100", "Message-ID": "<1603183709-23420-14-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com>", "X-Mailer": "git-send-email 1.8.3.1", "In-Reply-To": "<1603183709-23420-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com>", "References": "<1603183709-23420-1-git-send-email-arybchenko@solarflare.com>", "MIME-Version": "1.0", "Content-Type": "text/plain", "X-TM-AS-Product-Ver": "SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.6.1012-25736.003", "X-TM-AS-Result": "No-1.558600-8.000000-10", "X-TMASE-MatchedRID": "Fq9/SvL6Kz48h5fiCCMPpCfa1HFVDArQqLKYlTwO0TVV1lQ/Hn0TOo10\n Z1sGBhM6FA1eIuuV70Xm6gCNYEXf0if9wxvvYmtJsFkCLeeufNtMhH/KpYxyu3CR0itW3xfVyJN\n a6DYLgM0003R2T+VvjnDlPghqPnfyYlldA0POS1L/V0SDC1Do0KNeL/tbjwkH0qkUgB4fU1D9cw\n QgLdEm+bEwnnFnQnmn/X61PWt0t3wI9OW4GjlDnomR/mpCAiHdAzwceAn9JLO6pZ/o2Hu2YaHD1\n a7PvZdlwA+RVu6JmDZUgpn09r97XslxOpZvztj9caD+wPaBYtbqobkz1A0A7TbpMgyAfh26166X\n b3/Hw4PMJufbBoyPldx6P1iG7NuXxqbzNYweGDsQcA6La5GzvRC26qzoFs8nq4++j0vqJohT/40\n CMa1mSHT3Tly2WlgffjWeJX0rKbMfE8yM4pjsDwtuKBGekqUpnH7sbImOEBTUNd10cXjhG/HizZ\n Ksb3ldFC2CbN0TjUDbc9IwzDzDICNHkXbxTtuLhMWn7XyH8+z8voBIh1RMGoK8f7jcr319NcHSV\n m1uzr3kA8OrYHdwDGfYlY/yoV/0Up6EHOb2+c7kHZDO53QSwmA7bUFBqh2V", "X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender": "Yes", "X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender": "No", "X-TMASE-Result": "10--1.558600-8.000000", "X-TMASE-Version": "SMEX-12.5.0.1300-8.6.1012-25736.003", "X-MDID": "1603183736-kRAO9xx290JP", "X-PPE-DISP": "1603183736;kRAO9xx290JP", "Subject": "[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 13/62] net/sfc: add verify method to flow\n\tvalidate path", "X-BeenThere": "dev@dpdk.org", "X-Mailman-Version": "2.1.15", "Precedence": "list", "List-Id": "DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>", "List-Unsubscribe": "<https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,\n <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>", "List-Archive": "<http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>", "List-Post": "<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>", "List-Help": "<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>", "List-Subscribe": "<https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,\n <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>", "Errors-To": "dev-bounces@dpdk.org", "Sender": "\"dev\" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>" }, "content": "From: Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>\n\nThe new method is needed to make sure that a flow being\nvalidated will have a chance to be accepted by the FW.\nMAE-specific implementation of the method should\ncompare the class of a rule being validated with\nthe corresponding classes of active rules, and,\nif no matches found, make a request to the FW.\nSupport for the latter will be added in future.\n\nSigned-off-by: Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>\nSigned-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>\nReviewed-by: Andy Moreton <amoreton@xilinx.com>\n---\n drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++\n drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h | 3 ++\n drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\n drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h | 1 +\n 4 files changed, 119 insertions(+)", "diff": "diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c\nindex 634818cdf2..f69dd6ac5d 100644\n--- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c\n+++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c\n@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@\n \n struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec {\n \tsfc_flow_parse_cb_t\t*parse;\n+\tsfc_flow_verify_cb_t\t*verify;\n \tsfc_flow_cleanup_cb_t\t*cleanup;\n \tsfc_flow_insert_cb_t\t*insert;\n \tsfc_flow_remove_cb_t\t*remove;\n@@ -39,6 +40,7 @@ static sfc_flow_remove_cb_t sfc_flow_filter_remove;\n \n static const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec sfc_flow_ops_filter = {\n \t.parse = sfc_flow_parse_rte_to_filter,\n+\t.verify = NULL,\n \t.cleanup = NULL,\n \t.insert = sfc_flow_filter_insert,\n \t.remove = sfc_flow_filter_remove,\n@@ -46,6 +48,7 @@ static const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec sfc_flow_ops_filter = {\n \n static const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec sfc_flow_ops_mae = {\n \t.parse = sfc_flow_parse_rte_to_mae,\n+\t.verify = sfc_mae_flow_verify,\n \t.cleanup = sfc_mae_flow_cleanup,\n \t.insert = NULL,\n \t.remove = NULL,\n@@ -2543,6 +2546,41 @@ sfc_flow_remove(struct sfc_adapter *sa, struct rte_flow *flow,\n \treturn rc;\n }\n \n+static int\n+sfc_flow_verify(struct sfc_adapter *sa, struct rte_flow *flow,\n+\t\tstruct rte_flow_error *error)\n+{\n+\tconst struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec *ops;\n+\tint rc = 0;\n+\n+\tops = sfc_flow_get_ops_by_spec(flow);\n+\tif (ops == NULL) {\n+\t\trte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP,\n+\t\t\t\t RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, NULL,\n+\t\t\t\t \"No backend to handle this flow\");\n+\t\treturn -rte_errno;\n+\t}\n+\n+\tif (ops->verify != NULL) {\n+\t\t/*\n+\t\t * Use locking since verify method may need to\n+\t\t * access the list of already created rules.\n+\t\t */\n+\t\tsfc_adapter_lock(sa);\n+\t\trc = ops->verify(sa, flow);\n+\t\tsfc_adapter_unlock(sa);\n+\t}\n+\n+\tif (rc != 0) {\n+\t\trte_flow_error_set(error, rc,\n+\t\t\tRTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, NULL,\n+\t\t\t\"Failed to verify flow validity with FW\");\n+\t\treturn -rte_errno;\n+\t}\n+\n+\treturn 0;\n+}\n+\n static int\n sfc_flow_validate(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,\n \t\t const struct rte_flow_attr *attr,\n@@ -2559,6 +2597,8 @@ sfc_flow_validate(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,\n \t\treturn -rte_errno;\n \n \trc = sfc_flow_parse(dev, attr, pattern, actions, flow, error);\n+\tif (rc == 0)\n+\t\trc = sfc_flow_verify(sa, flow, error);\n \n \tsfc_flow_free(sa, flow);\n \ndiff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h\nindex 03a68d8633..164e9f9a9a 100644\n--- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h\n+++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h\n@@ -159,6 +159,9 @@ typedef int (sfc_flow_parse_cb_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,\n \t\t\t\t struct rte_flow *flow,\n \t\t\t\t struct rte_flow_error *error);\n \n+typedef int (sfc_flow_verify_cb_t)(struct sfc_adapter *sa,\n+\t\t\t\t struct rte_flow *flow);\n+\n typedef void (sfc_flow_cleanup_cb_t)(struct sfc_adapter *sa,\n \t\t\t\t struct rte_flow *flow);\n \ndiff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c\nindex 7e4397762b..42200c3f7e 100644\n--- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c\n+++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c\n@@ -148,3 +148,78 @@ sfc_mae_rule_parse_pattern(struct sfc_adapter *sa,\n fail_init_match_spec_action:\n \treturn rc;\n }\n+\n+static bool\n+sfc_mae_rules_class_cmp(struct sfc_adapter *sa,\n+\t\t\tconst efx_mae_match_spec_t *left,\n+\t\t\tconst efx_mae_match_spec_t *right)\n+{\n+\tbool have_same_class;\n+\tint rc;\n+\n+\trc = efx_mae_match_specs_class_cmp(sa->nic, left, right,\n+\t\t\t\t\t &have_same_class);\n+\n+\treturn (rc == 0) ? have_same_class : false;\n+}\n+\n+static int\n+sfc_mae_action_rule_class_verify(struct sfc_adapter *sa,\n+\t\t\t\t struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *spec)\n+{\n+\tconst struct rte_flow *entry;\n+\n+\tTAILQ_FOREACH_REVERSE(entry, &sa->flow_list, sfc_flow_list, entries) {\n+\t\tconst struct sfc_flow_spec *entry_spec = &entry->spec;\n+\t\tconst struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *es_mae = &entry_spec->mae;\n+\t\tconst efx_mae_match_spec_t *left = es_mae->match_spec;\n+\t\tconst efx_mae_match_spec_t *right = spec->match_spec;\n+\n+\t\tswitch (entry_spec->type) {\n+\t\tcase SFC_FLOW_SPEC_FILTER:\n+\t\t\t/* Ignore VNIC-level flows */\n+\t\t\tbreak;\n+\t\tcase SFC_FLOW_SPEC_MAE:\n+\t\t\tif (sfc_mae_rules_class_cmp(sa, left, right))\n+\t\t\t\treturn 0;\n+\t\t\tbreak;\n+\t\tdefault:\n+\t\t\tSFC_ASSERT(false);\n+\t\t}\n+\t}\n+\n+\tsfc_info(sa, \"for now, the HW doesn't support rule validation, and HW \"\n+\t\t \"support for inner frame pattern items is not guaranteed; \"\n+\t\t \"other than that, the items are valid from SW standpoint\");\n+\treturn 0;\n+}\n+\n+/**\n+ * Confirm that a given flow can be accepted by the FW.\n+ *\n+ * @param sa\n+ * Software adapter context\n+ * @param flow\n+ * Flow to be verified\n+ * @return\n+ * Zero on success and non-zero in the case of error.\n+ * A special value of EAGAIN indicates that the adapter is\n+ * not in started state. This state is compulsory because\n+ * it only makes sense to compare the rule class of the flow\n+ * being validated with classes of the active rules.\n+ * Such classes are wittingly supported by the FW.\n+ */\n+int\n+sfc_mae_flow_verify(struct sfc_adapter *sa,\n+\t\t struct rte_flow *flow)\n+{\n+\tstruct sfc_flow_spec *spec = &flow->spec;\n+\tstruct sfc_flow_spec_mae *spec_mae = &spec->mae;\n+\n+\tSFC_ASSERT(sfc_adapter_is_locked(sa));\n+\n+\tif (sa->state != SFC_ADAPTER_STARTED)\n+\t\treturn EAGAIN;\n+\n+\treturn sfc_mae_action_rule_class_verify(sa, spec_mae);\n+}\ndiff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h\nindex 536dadd092..4c5bc4c6ce 100644\n--- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h\n+++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h\n@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ int sfc_mae_rule_parse_pattern(struct sfc_adapter *sa,\n \t\t\t const struct rte_flow_item pattern[],\n \t\t\t struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *spec,\n \t\t\t struct rte_flow_error *error);\n+sfc_flow_verify_cb_t sfc_mae_flow_verify;\n \n #ifdef __cplusplus\n }\n", "prefixes": [ "13/62" ] }