netdev - Re: mlx5e question about PF fwd packets to PF

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMid-R-3rFtuTEpwf8=AYgon2yNEvctAupucUE58qNMRWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 2 Jan 2020 11:38:47 +0200
From:   Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:     Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
Cc:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@....mellanox.co.il>,
        Roi Dayan <roid@...lanox.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: mlx5e question about PF fwd packets to PF

On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 11:32 AM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 3:50 PM Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 5:04 AM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 4:40 AM Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:39 AM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:

> I add "skip_sw" option in tc command, and update the tc version to
> upstream, it run successfully:
> # tc filter add dev $PF0 protocol all parent ffff: prio 1 handle 1
> flower skip_sw action mirred egress redirect dev $PF1
> # tc -d -s filter show dev $PF0 ingress
> filter protocol all pref 1 flower chain 0
> filter protocol all pref 1 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
>   skip_sw
>   in_hw in_hw_count 1

As I said, in_hw seems like a bug

> action order 1: mirred (Egress Redirect to device enp130s0f1) stolen
>   index 1 ref 1 bind 1 installed 42 sec used 0 sec
>   Action statistics:
> Sent 408954 bytes 4173 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
> Sent software 0 bytes 0 pkt
> Sent hardware 408954 bytes 4173 pkt
> backlog 0b 0p requeues 0

> > I don't think so, what is the need? something wrong with N+2 rules as I suggested?

> N+2 works fine.

good!

> I do some research about ovs offload with mellanox nic.

cool

> I add the uplink of PF0 and PF1 to ovs. and it can offload the
> rule(PF0 to PF1, I reproduce with tc commands) to hardware but the nic
> can't send the packet out.

we don't offload that and should return error on the tc command