[2/2] app/testpmd: fix incorrect MTU verification
Checks
Commit Message
From: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
The macro RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN isn't the minimum value of MTU. But testpmd
used it when execute 'port config mtu 0 xx' cmd. This patch fix it.
Fixes: 1bb4a528c41f ("ethdev: fix max Rx packet length")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
---
app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 4 ---
app/test-pmd/config.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Comments
On 4/6/2022 2:15 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
> From: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>
> The macro RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN isn't the minimum value of MTU. But testpmd
> used it when execute 'port config mtu 0 xx' cmd. This patch fix it.
>
> Fixes: 1bb4a528c41f ("ethdev: fix max Rx packet length")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
> ---
> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 4 ---
> app/test-pmd/config.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> index 6ffea8e21a..91e4090582 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
> @@ -2050,10 +2050,6 @@ cmd_config_mtu_parsed(void *parsed_result,
> {
> struct cmd_config_mtu_result *res = parsed_result;
>
> - if (res->value < RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN) {
> - fprintf(stderr, "mtu cannot be less than %d\n", RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN);
> - return;
> - }
> port_mtu_set(res->port_id, res->value);
> }
>
> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> index bd689f9f86..1b1e738f83 100644
> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
> @@ -1254,6 +1254,57 @@ port_reg_set(portid_t port_id, uint32_t reg_off, uint32_t reg_v)
> display_port_reg_value(port_id, reg_off, reg_v);
> }
>
> +static uint32_t
> +eth_dev_get_overhead_len(uint32_t max_rx_pktlen, uint16_t max_mtu)
> +{
> + uint32_t overhead_len;
> +
> + if (max_mtu != UINT16_MAX && max_rx_pktlen > max_mtu)
> + overhead_len = max_rx_pktlen - max_mtu;
> + else
> + overhead_len = RTE_ETHER_HDR_LEN + RTE_ETHER_CRC_LEN;
> +
> + return overhead_len;
> +}
> +
> +static int
> +eth_dev_validate_mtu(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
> +{
> + struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
> + uint32_t overhead_len;
> + uint32_t frame_size;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port_id, &dev_info);
> + if (ret != 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + if (mtu < dev_info.min_mtu) {
> + fprintf(stderr,
> + "MTU (%u) < device min MTU (%u) for port_id %u\n",
> + mtu, dev_info.min_mtu, port_id);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + if (mtu > dev_info.max_mtu) {
> + fprintf(stderr,
> + "MTU (%u) > device max MTU (%u) for port_id %u\n",
> + mtu, dev_info.max_mtu, port_id);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + overhead_len = eth_dev_get_overhead_len(dev_info.max_rx_pktlen,
> + dev_info.max_mtu);
> + frame_size = mtu + overhead_len;
> + if (frame_size > dev_info.max_rx_pktlen) {
> + fprintf(stderr,
> + "Frame size (%u) > device max frame size (%u) for port_id %u\n",
> + frame_size, dev_info.max_rx_pktlen, port_id);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> void
> port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
> {
> @@ -1263,6 +1314,10 @@ port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
> if (port_id_is_invalid(port_id, ENABLED_WARN))
> return;
>
> + diag = eth_dev_validate_mtu(port_id, mtu);
> + if (diag != 0)
> + return;
> +
> if (port->need_reconfig == 0) {
> diag = rte_eth_dev_set_mtu(port_id, mtu);
> if (diag != 0) {
I just wanted to know if these added functions eth_dev_validate_mtu() &
eth_dev_get_overhead_len()
are copy of ethdev library API's in file "rte_ethdev.c", which get
called by rte_eth_dev_set_mtu.
Is our intent, is to call these twice ?
在 2022/4/26 0:25, Singh, Aman Deep 写道:
>
> On 4/6/2022 2:15 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>> From: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>>
>> The macro RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN isn't the minimum value of MTU. But testpmd
>> used it when execute 'port config mtu 0 xx' cmd. This patch fix it.
>>
>> Fixes: 1bb4a528c41f ("ethdev: fix max Rx packet length")
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> app/test-pmd/cmdline.c | 4 ---
>> app/test-pmd/config.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
>> index 6ffea8e21a..91e4090582 100644
>> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c
>> @@ -2050,10 +2050,6 @@ cmd_config_mtu_parsed(void *parsed_result,
>> {
>> struct cmd_config_mtu_result *res = parsed_result;
>> - if (res->value < RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN) {
>> - fprintf(stderr, "mtu cannot be less than %d\n",
>> RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN);
>> - return;
>> - }
>> port_mtu_set(res->port_id, res->value);
>> }
>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/config.c b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>> index bd689f9f86..1b1e738f83 100644
>> --- a/app/test-pmd/config.c
>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/config.c
>> @@ -1254,6 +1254,57 @@ port_reg_set(portid_t port_id, uint32_t
>> reg_off, uint32_t reg_v)
>> display_port_reg_value(port_id, reg_off, reg_v);
>> }
>> +static uint32_t
>> +eth_dev_get_overhead_len(uint32_t max_rx_pktlen, uint16_t max_mtu)
>> +{
>> + uint32_t overhead_len;
>> +
>> + if (max_mtu != UINT16_MAX && max_rx_pktlen > max_mtu)
>> + overhead_len = max_rx_pktlen - max_mtu;
>> + else
>> + overhead_len = RTE_ETHER_HDR_LEN + RTE_ETHER_CRC_LEN;
>> +
>> + return overhead_len;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int
>> +eth_dev_validate_mtu(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
>> +{
>> + struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
>> + uint32_t overhead_len;
>> + uint32_t frame_size;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port_id, &dev_info);
>> + if (ret != 0)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + if (mtu < dev_info.min_mtu) {
>> + fprintf(stderr,
>> + "MTU (%u) < device min MTU (%u) for port_id %u\n",
>> + mtu, dev_info.min_mtu, port_id);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> + if (mtu > dev_info.max_mtu) {
>> + fprintf(stderr,
>> + "MTU (%u) > device max MTU (%u) for port_id %u\n",
>> + mtu, dev_info.max_mtu, port_id);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + overhead_len = eth_dev_get_overhead_len(dev_info.max_rx_pktlen,
>> + dev_info.max_mtu);
>> + frame_size = mtu + overhead_len;
>> + if (frame_size > dev_info.max_rx_pktlen) {
>> + fprintf(stderr,
>> + "Frame size (%u) > device max frame size (%u) for
>> port_id %u\n",
>> + frame_size, dev_info.max_rx_pktlen, port_id);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> void
>> port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
>> {
>> @@ -1263,6 +1314,10 @@ port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
>> if (port_id_is_invalid(port_id, ENABLED_WARN))
>> return;
>> + diag = eth_dev_validate_mtu(port_id, mtu);
>> + if (diag != 0)
>> + return;
>> +
>> if (port->need_reconfig == 0) {
>> diag = rte_eth_dev_set_mtu(port_id, mtu);
>> if (diag != 0) {
> I just wanted to know if these added functions eth_dev_validate_mtu()
> & eth_dev_get_overhead_len()
> are copy of ethdev library API's in file "rte_ethdev.c", which get
> called by rte_eth_dev_set_mtu.
> Is our intent, is to call these twice ?
If port->need_reconfig is 1, rte_eth_dev_set_mtu doesn't be called, and
MTU value is saved to port->dev_conf.rxmode.mtu. This dev_conf.rxmode.mtu
will be set to driver in dev_configure(). This check is performed to
prevent dev_configure() failure. That's what I think.
> .
On 4/26/2022 2:38 AM, lihuisong (C) wrote:
>
> 在 2022/4/26 0:25, Singh, Aman Deep 写道:
>>
>> On 4/6/2022 2:15 PM, Min Hu (Connor) wrote:
>>> From: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> The macro RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN isn't the minimum value of MTU. But testpmd
>>> used it when execute 'port config mtu 0 xx' cmd. This patch fix it.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 1bb4a528c41f ("ethdev: fix max Rx packet length")
>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li <lihuisong@huawei.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Min Hu (Connor) <humin29@huawei.com>
<...>
>>> @@ -1263,6 +1314,10 @@ port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
>>> if (port_id_is_invalid(port_id, ENABLED_WARN))
>>> return;
>>> + diag = eth_dev_validate_mtu(port_id, mtu);
>>> + if (diag != 0)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> if (port->need_reconfig == 0) {
>>> diag = rte_eth_dev_set_mtu(port_id, mtu);
>>> if (diag != 0) {
>> I just wanted to know if these added functions eth_dev_validate_mtu()
>> & eth_dev_get_overhead_len()
>> are copy of ethdev library API's in file "rte_ethdev.c", which get
>> called by rte_eth_dev_set_mtu.
>> Is our intent, is to call these twice ?
> If port->need_reconfig is 1, rte_eth_dev_set_mtu doesn't be called, and
> MTU value is saved to port->dev_conf.rxmode.mtu. This dev_conf.rxmode.mtu
> will be set to driver in dev_configure(). This check is performed to
> prevent dev_configure() failure. That's what I think.
>> .
Testpmd stores the MTU value and process it during start_port(), which
may postpone any possible error in rte_eth_dev_configure(), so I think
it is OK to duplicate the check in app level.
Acked-by: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@xilinx.com>
@@ -2050,10 +2050,6 @@ cmd_config_mtu_parsed(void *parsed_result,
{
struct cmd_config_mtu_result *res = parsed_result;
- if (res->value < RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN) {
- fprintf(stderr, "mtu cannot be less than %d\n", RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN);
- return;
- }
port_mtu_set(res->port_id, res->value);
}
@@ -1254,6 +1254,57 @@ port_reg_set(portid_t port_id, uint32_t reg_off, uint32_t reg_v)
display_port_reg_value(port_id, reg_off, reg_v);
}
+static uint32_t
+eth_dev_get_overhead_len(uint32_t max_rx_pktlen, uint16_t max_mtu)
+{
+ uint32_t overhead_len;
+
+ if (max_mtu != UINT16_MAX && max_rx_pktlen > max_mtu)
+ overhead_len = max_rx_pktlen - max_mtu;
+ else
+ overhead_len = RTE_ETHER_HDR_LEN + RTE_ETHER_CRC_LEN;
+
+ return overhead_len;
+}
+
+static int
+eth_dev_validate_mtu(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
+{
+ struct rte_eth_dev_info dev_info;
+ uint32_t overhead_len;
+ uint32_t frame_size;
+ int ret;
+
+ ret = rte_eth_dev_info_get(port_id, &dev_info);
+ if (ret != 0)
+ return ret;
+
+ if (mtu < dev_info.min_mtu) {
+ fprintf(stderr,
+ "MTU (%u) < device min MTU (%u) for port_id %u\n",
+ mtu, dev_info.min_mtu, port_id);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+ if (mtu > dev_info.max_mtu) {
+ fprintf(stderr,
+ "MTU (%u) > device max MTU (%u) for port_id %u\n",
+ mtu, dev_info.max_mtu, port_id);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ overhead_len = eth_dev_get_overhead_len(dev_info.max_rx_pktlen,
+ dev_info.max_mtu);
+ frame_size = mtu + overhead_len;
+ if (frame_size > dev_info.max_rx_pktlen) {
+ fprintf(stderr,
+ "Frame size (%u) > device max frame size (%u) for port_id %u\n",
+ frame_size, dev_info.max_rx_pktlen, port_id);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
void
port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
{
@@ -1263,6 +1314,10 @@ port_mtu_set(portid_t port_id, uint16_t mtu)
if (port_id_is_invalid(port_id, ENABLED_WARN))
return;
+ diag = eth_dev_validate_mtu(port_id, mtu);
+ if (diag != 0)
+ return;
+
if (port->need_reconfig == 0) {
diag = rte_eth_dev_set_mtu(port_id, mtu);
if (diag != 0) {