[v3,01/11] ethdev: add extensions attributes to IPv6 item

79603 diff mbox series

Using the current implementation of DPDK, an application cannot match on
IPv6 packets, based on the existing extension headers, in a simple way.

Field 'Next Header' in IPv6 header indicates type of the first extension
header only. Following extension headers can't be identified by
inspecting the IPv6 header.
As a result, the existence or absence of specific extension headers
can't be used for packet matching.

For example, fragmented IPv6 packets contain a dedicated extension header
(which is implemented in a later patch of this series).
Non-fragmented packets don't contain the fragment extension header.
For an application to match on non-fragmented IPv6 packets, the current
implementation doesn't provide a suitable solution.
Matching on the Next Header field is not sufficient, since additional
extension headers might be present in the same packet.
To match on fragmented IPv6 packets, the same difficulty exists.

This patch implements the update as detailed in RFC [1].
A set of additional values will be added to IPv6 header struct.
These values will indicate the existence of every defined extension
header type, providing simple means for identification of existing
extensions in the packet header.
Continuing the above example, fragmented packets can be identified using
the specific value indicating existence of fragment extension header.

[1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-August/177257.html

Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dekelp@nvidia.com>
Acked-by: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
---
 doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 16 +++++++++++++---
 lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h       | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 1:37 AM Dekel Peled <dekelp@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> Using the current implementation of DPDK, an application cannot match on
> IPv6 packets, based on the existing extension headers, in a simple way.
>
> Field 'Next Header' in IPv6 header indicates type of the first extension
> header only. Following extension headers can't be identified by
> inspecting the IPv6 header.
> As a result, the existence or absence of specific extension headers
> can't be used for packet matching.
>
> For example, fragmented IPv6 packets contain a dedicated extension header
> (which is implemented in a later patch of this series).
> Non-fragmented packets don't contain the fragment extension header.
> For an application to match on non-fragmented IPv6 packets, the current
> implementation doesn't provide a suitable solution.
> Matching on the Next Header field is not sufficient, since additional
> extension headers might be present in the same packet.
> To match on fragmented IPv6 packets, the same difficulty exists.
>
> This patch implements the update as detailed in RFC [1].
> A set of additional values will be added to IPv6 header struct.
> These values will indicate the existence of every defined extension
> header type, providing simple means for identification of existing
> extensions in the packet header.
> Continuing the above example, fragmented packets can be identified using
> the specific value indicating existence of fragment extension header.
>
> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-August/177257.html
>
> Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dekelp@nvidia.com>
> Acked-by: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 16 +++++++++++++---
>  lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h       | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> index 119b128..0b476da 100644
> --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> @@ -946,11 +946,21 @@ Item: ``IPV6``
>
>  Matches an IPv6 header.
>
> -Note: IPv6 options are handled by dedicated pattern items, see `Item:
> -IPV6_EXT`_.
> +Dedicated flags indicate existence of specific extension headers.
> +Every type of extension header can use a dedicated pattern item, or
> +the generic `Item: IPV6_EXT`_.

Can you add how the PMD should interpret if these flags are not set
by the application.
There is a mention of some of that in the testpmd commit log.
I think it is good to spell it out here.

>
>  - ``hdr``: IPv6 header definition (``rte_ip.h``).
> -- Default ``mask`` matches source and destination addresses only.
> +- ``hop_ext_exist``: Hop-by-Hop Options extension header exists.
> +- ``rout_ext_exist``: Routing extension header exists.
> +- ``frag_ext_exist``: Fragment extension header exists.
> +- ``auth_ext_exist``: Authentication extension header exists.
> +- ``esp_ext_exist``: Encapsulation Security Payload extension header exists.
> +- ``dest_ext_exist``: Destination Options extension header exists.
> +- ``mobil_ext_exist``: Mobility extension header exists.
> +- ``hip_ext_exist``: Host Identity Protocol extension header exists.
> +- ``shim6_ext_exist``: Shim6 Protocol extension header exists.
> +- Default ``mask`` matches ``hdr`` source and destination addresses only.
>
>  Item: ``ICMP``
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> index da8bfa5..5b5bed2 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> @@ -792,11 +792,32 @@ struct rte_flow_item_ipv4 {
>   *
>   * Matches an IPv6 header.
>   *
> - * Note: IPv6 options are handled by dedicated pattern items, see
> - * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6_EXT.
> + * Dedicated flags indicate existence of specific extension headers.
> + * Every type of extension header can use a dedicated pattern item, or
> + * the generic item RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6_EXT.
>   */
>  struct rte_flow_item_ipv6 {
>         struct rte_ipv6_hdr hdr; /**< IPv6 header definition. */
> +       uint32_t hop_ext_exist:1;
> +       /**< Hop-by-Hop Options extension header exists. */
> +       uint32_t rout_ext_exist:1;
> +       /**< Routing extension header exists. */
> +       uint32_t frag_ext_exist:1;
> +       /**< Fragment extension header exists. */
> +       uint32_t auth_ext_exist:1;
> +       /**< Authentication extension header exists. */
> +       uint32_t esp_ext_exist:1;
> +       /**< Encapsulation Security Payload extension header exists. */
> +       uint32_t dest_ext_exist:1;
> +       /**< Destination Options extension header exists. */
> +       uint32_t mobil_ext_exist:1;
> +       /**< Mobility extension header exists. */
> +       uint32_t hip_ext_exist:1;
> +       /**< Host Identity Protocol extension header exists. */
> +       uint32_t shim6_ext_exist:1;
> +       /**< Shim6 Protocol extension header exists. */
> +       uint32_t reserved:23;
> +       /**< Reserved for future extension headers, must be zero. */
>  };
>
>  /** Default mask for RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6. */
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>

Thanks, PSB.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajit Khaparde <ajit.khaparde@broadcom.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 2:44 AM
> To: Dekel Peled <dekelp@nvidia.com>
> Cc: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> <thomas@monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; Andrew
> Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin
> <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>;
> Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>; Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>;
> Iremonger, Bernard <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>; Matan Azrad
> <matan@nvidia.com>; Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@nvidia.com>; Slava
> Ovsiienko <viacheslavo@nvidia.com>; dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 01/11] ethdev: add extensions attributes
> to IPv6 item
> 
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 1:37 AM Dekel Peled <dekelp@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >
> > Using the current implementation of DPDK, an application cannot match on
> > IPv6 packets, based on the existing extension headers, in a simple way.
> >
> > Field 'Next Header' in IPv6 header indicates type of the first extension
> > header only. Following extension headers can't be identified by
> > inspecting the IPv6 header.
> > As a result, the existence or absence of specific extension headers
> > can't be used for packet matching.
> >
> > For example, fragmented IPv6 packets contain a dedicated extension
> header
> > (which is implemented in a later patch of this series).
> > Non-fragmented packets don't contain the fragment extension header.
> > For an application to match on non-fragmented IPv6 packets, the current
> > implementation doesn't provide a suitable solution.
> > Matching on the Next Header field is not sufficient, since additional
> > extension headers might be present in the same packet.
> > To match on fragmented IPv6 packets, the same difficulty exists.
> >
> > This patch implements the update as detailed in RFC [1].
> > A set of additional values will be added to IPv6 header struct.
> > These values will indicate the existence of every defined extension
> > header type, providing simple means for identification of existing
> > extensions in the packet header.
> > Continuing the above example, fragmented packets can be identified using
> > the specific value indicating existence of fragment extension header.
> >
> > [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-August/177257.html
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dekelp@nvidia.com>
> > Acked-by: Ori Kam <orika@nvidia.com>
> > ---
> >  doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst | 16 +++++++++++++---
> >  lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h       | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > index 119b128..0b476da 100644
> > --- a/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > +++ b/doc/guides/prog_guide/rte_flow.rst
> > @@ -946,11 +946,21 @@ Item: ``IPV6``
> >
> >  Matches an IPv6 header.
> >
> > -Note: IPv6 options are handled by dedicated pattern items, see `Item:
> > -IPV6_EXT`_.
> > +Dedicated flags indicate existence of specific extension headers.
> > +Every type of extension header can use a dedicated pattern item, or
> > +the generic `Item: IPV6_EXT`_.
> 
> Can you add how the PMD should interpret if these flags are not set
> by the application.
> There is a mention of some of that in the testpmd commit log.
> I think it is good to spell it out here.

Agree, I will add it in the git log for next version.

> 
> >
> >  - ``hdr``: IPv6 header definition (``rte_ip.h``).
> > -- Default ``mask`` matches source and destination addresses only.
> > +- ``hop_ext_exist``: Hop-by-Hop Options extension header exists.
> > +- ``rout_ext_exist``: Routing extension header exists.
> > +- ``frag_ext_exist``: Fragment extension header exists.
> > +- ``auth_ext_exist``: Authentication extension header exists.
> > +- ``esp_ext_exist``: Encapsulation Security Payload extension header
> exists.
> > +- ``dest_ext_exist``: Destination Options extension header exists.
> > +- ``mobil_ext_exist``: Mobility extension header exists.
> > +- ``hip_ext_exist``: Host Identity Protocol extension header exists.
> > +- ``shim6_ext_exist``: Shim6 Protocol extension header exists.
> > +- Default ``mask`` matches ``hdr`` source and destination addresses only.
> >
> >  Item: ``ICMP``
> >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > index da8bfa5..5b5bed2 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.h
> > @@ -792,11 +792,32 @@ struct rte_flow_item_ipv4 {
> >   *
> >   * Matches an IPv6 header.
> >   *
> > - * Note: IPv6 options are handled by dedicated pattern items, see
> > - * RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6_EXT.
> > + * Dedicated flags indicate existence of specific extension headers.
> > + * Every type of extension header can use a dedicated pattern item, or
> > + * the generic item RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6_EXT.
> >   */
> >  struct rte_flow_item_ipv6 {
> >         struct rte_ipv6_hdr hdr; /**< IPv6 header definition. */
> > +       uint32_t hop_ext_exist:1;
> > +       /**< Hop-by-Hop Options extension header exists. */
> > +       uint32_t rout_ext_exist:1;
> > +       /**< Routing extension header exists. */
> > +       uint32_t frag_ext_exist:1;
> > +       /**< Fragment extension header exists. */
> > +       uint32_t auth_ext_exist:1;
> > +       /**< Authentication extension header exists. */
> > +       uint32_t esp_ext_exist:1;
> > +       /**< Encapsulation Security Payload extension header exists. */
> > +       uint32_t dest_ext_exist:1;
> > +       /**< Destination Options extension header exists. */
> > +       uint32_t mobil_ext_exist:1;
> > +       /**< Mobility extension header exists. */
> > +       uint32_t hip_ext_exist:1;
> > +       /**< Host Identity Protocol extension header exists. */
> > +       uint32_t shim6_ext_exist:1;
> > +       /**< Shim6 Protocol extension header exists. */
> > +       uint32_t reserved:23;
> > +       /**< Reserved for future extension headers, must be zero. */
> >  };
> >
> >  /** Default mask for RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6. */
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >