| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 13:05:48 +0000
From: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
To: wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>
CC: "pablo@...filter.org" <pablo@...filter.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Bloch <markb@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: Question about flow table offload in mlx5e
I see, I will test that, and how about normal FWD rules?
Paul.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 2:35 PM
> To: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
> Cc: pablo@...filter.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Mark Bloch
> <markb@...lanox.com>
> Subject: Re: Question about flow table offload in mlx5e
>
>
> 在 2019/11/21 19:39, Paul Blakey 写道:
> > They are good fixes, exactly what we had when we tested this, thanks.
> >
> > Regarding encap, I don't know what changes you did, how does the encap
> rule look? Is it a FWD to vxlan device? If not it should be, as our driver
> expects that.
> It is fwd to a gretap devices
> >
> > I tried it on my setup via tc, by changing the callback of tc
> (mlx5e_rep_setup_tc_cb) to that of ft (mlx5e_rep_setup_ft_cb),
> > and testing a vxlan encap rule:
> > sudo tc qdisc add dev ens1f0_0 ingress
> > sudo ifconfig ens1f0 7.7.7.7/24 up
> > sudo ip link add name vxlan0 type vxlan dev ens1f0 remote 7.7.7.8 dstport
> 4789 external
> > sudo ifconfig vxlan0 up
> > sudo tc filter add dev ens1f0_0 ingress prio 1 chain 0 protocol ip flower
> dst_mac aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff ip_proto udp skip_sw action tunnel_key set
> src_ip 0.0.0.0 dst_ip 7.7.7.8 id 1234 dst_port 4789 pipe action mirred egress
> redirect dev vxlan
> >
> > then tc show:
> > filter protocol ip pref 1 flower chain 0 handle 0x1 dst_mac aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff
> ip_proto udp skip_sw in_hw in_hw_count 1
> > tunnel_key set src_ip 0.0.0.0 dst_ip 7.7.7.8 key_id 1234 dst_port 4789
> csum pipe
> > Stats: used 119 sec 0 pkt
> > mirred (Egress Redirect to device vxlan0)
> > Stats: used 119 sec 0 pkt
>
> Can you send packet that match this offloaded flow to check it is real
> offloaded?
>
> In the flowtable offload with my patches both TC_SETUP_BLOCK and
> TC_SETUP_FT can offload the rule success
>
> But in the TC_SETUP_FT case the packet is not real offloaded.
>
>
> I will test like u did.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>
> >> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 10:29 AM
> >> To: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
> >> Cc: pablo@...filter.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Mark Bloch
> >> <markb@...lanox.com>
> >> Subject: Re: Question about flow table offload in mlx5e
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/21/2019 3:42 PM, Paul Blakey wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> The original design was the block setup to use TC_SETUP_FT type, and
> the
> >> tc event type to be case TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER.
> >>> We will post a patch to change that. I would advise to wait till we fix that
> >> 😊
> >>> I'm not sure how you get to this function mlx5e_rep_setup_ft_cb() if it
> the
> >> nf_flow_table_offload ndo_setup_tc event was TC_SETUP_BLOCK, and
> not
> >> TC_SETUP_FT.
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes I change the TC_SETUP_BLOCK to TC_SETUP_FT in the
> >> nf_flow_table_offload_setup.
> >>
> >> Two fixes patch provide:
> >>
> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1197818/
> >>
> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1197876/
> >>
> >> So this change made by me is not correct currently?
> >>
> >>> In our driver en_rep.c we have:
> >>>> -------switch (type) {
> >>>> -------case TC_SETUP_BLOCK:
> >>>> ------->-------return flow_block_cb_setup_simple(type_data,
> >>>> ------->------->------->------->------->-------
> &mlx5e_rep_block_tc_cb_list,
> >>>> ------->------->------->------->------->------- mlx5e_rep_setup_tc_cb,
> >>>> ------->------->------->------->------->------- priv, priv, true);
> >>>> -------case TC_SETUP_FT:
> >>>> ------->-------return flow_block_cb_setup_simple(type_data,
> >>>> ------->------->------->------->------->-------
> &mlx5e_rep_block_ft_cb_list,
> >>>> ------->------->------->------->------->------- mlx5e_rep_setup_ft_cb,
> >>>> ------->------->------->------->------->------- priv, priv, true);
> >>>> -------default:
> >>>> ------->-------return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >>>> -------}
> >>> In nf_flow_table_offload.c:
> >>>> -------bo.binder_type>-=
> FLOW_BLOCK_BINDER_TYPE_CLSACT_INGRESS;
> >>>> -------bo.extack>------= &extack;
> >>>> -------INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bo.cb_list);
> >>>> -------err = dev->netdev_ops->ndo_setup_tc(dev, TC_SETUP_BLOCK,
> >> &bo);
> >>>> -------if (err < 0)
> >>>> ------->-------return err;
> >>>> -------return nf_flow_table_block_setup(flowtable, &bo, cmd);
> >>> }
> >>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nf_flow_table_offload_setup);
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So unless you changed that as well, you should have gotten to
> >> mlx5e_rep_setup_tc_cb and not mlx5e_rep_setup_tc_ft.
> >>> Regarding the encap action, there should be no difference on which
> chain
> >> the rule is on.
> >>
> >>
> >> But for the same encap rule can be real offloaded when setup through
> >> through TC_SETUP_BLOCK. But TC_SETUP_FT can't.
> >>
> >> So it is the problem of TC_SETUP_FT in mlx5e_rep_setup_ft_cb ?
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: wenxu <wenxu@...oud.cn>
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2019 9:30 AM
> >>>> To: Paul Blakey <paulb@...lanox.com>
> >>>> Cc: pablo@...filter.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Mark Bloch
> >>>> <markb@...lanox.com>
> >>>> Subject: Question about flow table offload in mlx5e
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi paul,
> >>>>
> >>>> The flow table offload in the mlx5e is based on TC_SETUP_FT.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It is almost the same as TC_SETUP_BLOCK.
> >>>>
> >>>> It just set MLX5_TC_FLAG(FT_OFFLOAD) flags and change
> >>>> cls_flower.common.chain_index = FDB_FT_CHAIN;
> >>>>
> >>>> In following codes line 1380 and 1392
> >>>>
> >>>> 1368 static int mlx5e_rep_setup_ft_cb(enum tc_setup_type type, void
> >>>> *type_data,
> >>>> 1369 void *cb_priv)
> >>>> 1370 {
> >>>> 1371 struct flow_cls_offload *f = type_data;
> >>>> 1372 struct flow_cls_offload cls_flower;
> >>>> 1373 struct mlx5e_priv *priv = cb_priv;
> >>>> 1374 struct mlx5_eswitch *esw;
> >>>> 1375 unsigned long flags;
> >>>> 1376 int err;
> >>>> 1377
> >>>> 1378 flags = MLX5_TC_FLAG(INGRESS) |
> >>>> 1379 MLX5_TC_FLAG(ESW_OFFLOAD) |
> >>>> 1380 MLX5_TC_FLAG(FT_OFFLOAD);
> >>>> 1381 esw = priv->mdev->priv.eswitch;
> >>>> 1382
> >>>> 1383 switch (type) {
> >>>> 1384 case TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER:
> >>>> 1385 if (!mlx5_eswitch_prios_supported(esw) || f-
> >>>>> common.chain_index)
> >>>> 1386 return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >>>> 1387
> >>>> 1388 /* Re-use tc offload path by moving the ft flow to the
> >>>> 1389 * reserved ft chain.
> >>>> 1390 */
> >>>> 1391 memcpy(&cls_flower, f, sizeof(*f));
> >>>> 1392 cls_flower.common.chain_index = FDB_FT_CHAIN;
> >>>> 1393 err = mlx5e_rep_setup_tc_cls_flower(priv, &cls_flower,
> >> flags);
> >>>> 1394 memcpy(&f->stats, &cls_flower.stats, sizeof(f->stats));
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I want to add tunnel offload support in the flow table, I add some
> patches
> >> in
> >>>> nf_flow_table_offload.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also add the indr setup support in the mlx driver. And Now I can flow
> >> table
> >>>> offload with decap.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But I meet a problem with the encap. The encap rule can be added in
> >>>> hardware successfully But it can't be offloaded.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I think the rule I added is correct. If I mask the line 1392. The rule
> also
> >> can
> >>>> be add success and can be offloaded.
> >>>>
> >>>> So there are some limit for encap operation for FT_OFFLOAD in
> >>>> FDB_FT_CHAIN?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> BR
> >>>>
> >>>> wenxu
> >>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists