Message-ID: <20200507192903.whnx2j3f35ga7jzx@ws.localdomain>
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 21:29:03 +0200
From:   "Allan W. Nielsen" <allan.nielsen@...rochip.com>
To:     Xiaoliang Yang <xiaoliang.yang_1@....com>
CC:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>, Po Liu <po.liu@....com>,
        "Claudiu Manoil" <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
        Alexandru Marginean <alexandru.marginean@....com>,
        Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
        "Leo Li" <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" <linux-devel@...ux.nxdi.nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v1 net-next 4/6] net: mscc: ocelot: VCAP IS1
 support

On 07.05.2020 11:23, Xiaoliang Yang wrote:
>EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
>Hi Allan,
>
>
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> On 06.05.2020 13:53, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
>[snip]
>> >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
>
>Do you mean it's better to set vlan modify filters in a different chain, and write the filter entries with a same chain in the same VCAP TCAM?
>For example:
>        tc filter add dev enp0s3 protocol 802.1Q chain 11 parent ffff: prio 10 flower skip_sw vlan_id 5 action vlan modify id 10
>        tc filter add dev enp0s3 protocol 802.1Q chain 22 parent ffff: prio 20 flower skip_sw src_mac 00:00:00:00:00:08 action drop
>for this usage, we only need to ensure a chain corresponding to a VCAP in ocelot ace driver. I'm not sure is my understanding right?

I still have not found a satisfying solution to this. As I understand
the chains, they require the "goto" action to be used to tie them
together.

We could use that to represent a single lookup in is1 and link that to a
lookup in is2. Not sure if we should, it will also require
(non-backwards compatible) changes in how the existing IS2 support is
working.

Again, I do not have the answer (I'm also looking for it), but I think
we need something where it is clear to the user that this end up in
different lists.

/Allan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists