[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.4.64.1006211326380.4956@PPWASKIE-MOBL2.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:31:46 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
From: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
To: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
cc: "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"jeff@...zik.org" <jeff@...zik.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"gospo@...hat.com" <gospo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [ethtool PATCH] ethtool: Support n-tuple filter programming
On Mon, 21 Jun 2010, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 23:51 -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
>> From: Peter Waskiewicz <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
>>
>> Program underlying ethernet devices with n-tuple flow classification
>> filters.
>>
>> This also adds a new flag to ethtool_flags, allowing n-tuple
>> programming to be toggled using the set_flags call.
>
> I just noticed a problem with the implementation which makes me wonder
> whether this was tested at all:
Yes, it was tested. We didn't hit every corner case, which I think your
catch below is a corner case issue. Our hardware can only do so much.
>
> [...]
>> +static struct cmdline_info cmdline_ntuple[] = {
>> + { "src-ip", CMDL_INT, &ntuple_fs.h_u.tcp_ip4_spec.ip4src, NULL },
>> + { "src-ip-mask", CMDL_UINT, &ntuple_fs.m_u.tcp_ip4_spec.ip4src, NULL },
>> + { "dst-ip", CMDL_INT, &ntuple_fs.h_u.tcp_ip4_spec.ip4dst, NULL },
>> + { "dst-ip-mask", CMDL_UINT, &ntuple_fs.m_u.tcp_ip4_spec.ip4dst, NULL },
>> + { "src-port", CMDL_INT, &ntuple_fs.h_u.tcp_ip4_spec.psrc, NULL },
>> + { "src-port-mask", CMDL_UINT, &ntuple_fs.m_u.tcp_ip4_spec.psrc, NULL },
>> + { "dst-port", CMDL_INT, &ntuple_fs.h_u.tcp_ip4_spec.pdst, NULL },
>> + { "dst-port-mask", CMDL_UINT, &ntuple_fs.m_u.tcp_ip4_spec.pdst, NULL },
>> + { "vlan", CMDL_INT, &ntuple_fs.vlan_tag, NULL },
>> + { "vlan-mask", CMDL_UINT, &ntuple_fs.vlan_tag_mask, NULL },
>> + { "user-def", CMDL_INT, &ntuple_fs.data, NULL },
>> + { "user-def-mask", CMDL_UINT, &ntuple_fs.data_mask, NULL },
>> + { "action", CMDL_INT, &ntuple_fs.action, NULL },
>> +};
> [...]
>> + if (mode == MODE_SNTUPLE) {
>> + if (!strcmp(argp[i], "flow-type")) {
>> + i += 1;
>> + if (i >= argc) {
>> + show_usage(1);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + ntuple_fs.flow_type =
>> + rxflow_str_to_type(argp[i]);
>> + i += 1;
>> + parse_generic_cmdline(argc, argp, i,
>> + &sntuple_changed,
>> + cmdline_ntuple,
>> + ARRAY_SIZE(cmdline_ntuple));
>> + i = argc;
>> + break;
>> + } else {
>> + show_usage(1);
>> + }
>> + break;
>> + }
> [...]
>
> parse_generic_cmdline() will write an int for each argument defined with
> type CMDL_INT or CMDL_UINT. But the fields in ntuple_fs are not all of
> type int (or even 32-bit) - some of them are 16-bit or 64-bit, and some
> of them are big-endian. I also wonder whether anyone really wants to
> enter an IPv4 address as a single integer.
The assignment is broken since 'p' is an int. That can be fixed. Also,
we can fix the 64-bit field. I added the user-defined field to be 64-bit
so that we weren't locking anyone down. My hardware only uses 2 bytes, so
I was only able to test that.
When this was proposed, we added the IPv4 address as a single int. People
seemed ok with it at the time, so we went with it. If you have a
different approach, please present it.
Cheers,
-PJ
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists