linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 4/6] net: mscc: ocelot: VCAP IS1 support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200506211551.cf6mlad7ysmuqfvq@ws.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 23:15:51 +0200
From:   "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
CC:     Xiaoliang Yang <xiaoliang.yang_1@....com>, Po Liu <po.liu@....com>,
        Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        "Li Yang" <leoyang.li@....com>, Mingkai Hu <mingkai.hu@....com>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        Vivien Didelot <vivien.didelot@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Jiri Pirko" <jiri@...nulli.us>, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Horatiu Vultur <horatiu.vultur@...rochip.com>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
        Joergen Andreasen <joergen.andreasen@...rochip.com>,
        Microchip Linux Driver Support <UNGLinuxDriver@...rochip.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        <linux-devel@...ux.nxdi.nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 4/6] net: mscc: ocelot: VCAP IS1 support

Hi Vladimir,

On 06.05.2020 13:53, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 12:45, Allan W. Nielsen
><allan.nielsen@...rochip.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Xiaoliang,
>>
>> On 06.05.2020 15:48, Xiaoliang Yang wrote:
>> >VCAP IS1 is a VCAP module which can filter MAC, IP, VLAN, protocol, and
>> >TCP/UDP ports keys, and do Qos and VLAN retag actions.
>> >This patch added VCAP IS1 support in ocelot ace driver, which can supports
>> >vlan modify action of tc filter.
>> >Usage:
>> >        tc qdisc add dev swp0 ingress
>> >        tc filter add dev swp0 protocol 802.1Q parent ffff: flower \
>> >        skip_sw vlan_id 1 vlan_prio 1 action vlan modify id 2 priority 2
>> I skimmed skimmed through the patch serie, and the way I understood it
>> is that you look at the action, and if it is a VLAN operation, then you
>> put it in IS1 and if it is one of the other then put it in IS2.
>>
>> This is how the HW is designed - I'm aware of that.
>>
>> But how will this work if you have 2 rules, 1 modifying the VLAN and
>> another rule dropping certain packets?
>>
>
>At the moment, the driver does not support more than 1 action. We
>might need to change that, but we can still install more filters with
>the same key and still be fine (see more below). When there is more
>than 1 action, the IS1 stuff will be combined into a single rule
>programmed into IS1, and the IS2 stuff will be combined into a single
>new rule with the same keys installed into VCAP IS2. Would that not
>work?
>
>> The SW model have these two rules in the same table, and can stop
>> process at the first match. SW will do the action of the first frame
>> matching.
>>
>
>Actually I think this is an incorrect assumption - software stops at
>the first action only if told to do so. Let me copy-paste a text from
>a different email thread.

I'm still not able to see how this proposal will give us the same
behavioral in SW and in HW.

A simple example:

tc qdisc add dev enp0s3 ingress
tc filter add dev enp0s3 protocol 802.1Q parent ffff: \
     prio 10 flower vlan_id 5 action vlan modify id 10
tc filter add dev enp0s3 protocol 802.1Q parent ffff: \
     prio 20 flower src_mac 00:00:00:00:00:08 action drop

We can then inject a frame with VID 5 and smac ::08:
$ ef tx tap0 eth smac 00:00:00:00:00:08 ctag vid 5 

We can then check the filter and see that it only hit the first rule:

$ tc -s filter show dev enp0s3 ingress
filter protocol 802.1Q pref 10 flower chain 0
filter protocol 802.1Q pref 10 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
   vlan_id 5
   not_in_hw
         action order 1: vlan  modify id 10 protocol 802.1Q priority 0 pipe
          index 1 ref 1 bind 1 installed 19 sec used 6 sec
         Action statistics:
         Sent 42 bytes 1 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
         backlog 0b 0p requeues 0

filter protocol 802.1Q pref 20 flower chain 0
filter protocol 802.1Q pref 20 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
   src_mac 00:00:00:00:00:08
   not_in_hw
         action order 1: gact action drop
          random type none pass val 0
          index 1 ref 1 bind 1 installed 11 sec used 11 sec
         Action statistics:
         Sent 0 bytes 0 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
         backlog 0b 0p requeues 0

If this was done with the proposed HW offload, then both rules would
have been hit and we would have a different behavioral.

This can be fixed by adding the "continue" action to the first rule:

tc filter add dev enp0s3 protocol 802.1Q parent ffff: \
     prio 10 flower vlan_id 5 action vlan modify id 10 continue
tc filter add dev enp0s3 protocol 802.1Q parent ffff: \
     prio 20 flower src_mac 00:00:00:00:00:08 action drop

But that would again break if we add 2 rules manipulating the VLAN (as
the HW does not continue with in a single TCAM).

My point is: I do not think we can hide the fact that this is done
in independent TCAMs in the silicon.

I think it is possible to do this with the chain feature (even though it
is not a perfect match), but it would require more analysis.

/Allan