[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <55D68E60-BAFB-4000-81E2-20913CC326C9@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 13:49:42 -0700
From: Mitchell Erblich <erblichs@...thlink.net>
To: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
"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 Jun 21, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote:
> 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;
Why not " i++; " ?
>>> + if (i >= argc) {
>>> + show_usage(1);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>> + ntuple_fs.flow_type =
>>> + rxflow_str_to_type(argp[i]);
>>> + i += 1;
Why not " i++; " ?
>>> + 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
Without changing the flow:
NIT cleanup.
See inline.
Mitchell Erblich
> --
> 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
--
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