[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8735jkv2nm.fsf@nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 19:26:38 +0200
From: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...atatu.com>,
"Maor Dickman" <maord@...dia.com>
Subject: cls_flower vlan matching
Hi Jiri,
I've been debugging an issue that we encounter with OvS-created rules
for single and double-VLAN packets.
Basically, for flows with single VLAN OvS creates following tc filter:
filter protocol 802.1Q pref 2 flower chain 0
filter protocol 802.1Q pref 2 flower chain 0 handle 0x1
vlan_id 10
vlan_prio 0
vlan_ethtype ip
dst_mac e4:2c:0b:08:00:02
src_mac b8:ce:f6:05:e7:3a
eth_type ipv4
ip_flags nofrag
skip_hw
not_in_hw
action order 1: vlan pop pipe
index 2 ref 1 bind 1 installed 11 sec used 0 sec firstused 10 sec
Action statistics:
Sent 860 bytes 10 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
no_percpu
action order 2: mirred (Egress Redirect to device enp8s0f0_0) stolen
index 2 ref 1 bind 1 installed 11 sec used 0 sec firstused 10 sec
Action statistics:
Sent 860 bytes 10 pkt (dropped 0, overlimits 0 requeues 0)
backlog 0b 0p requeues 0
cookie 16a9b603144b3e0c64a887aeb972a269
no_percpu
Such rule also matches packets that have additional second VLAN header,
even though filter has both eth_type and vlan_ethtype set to "ipv4".
Looking at the code this seems to be mostly an artifact of the way
flower uses flow dissector. First, even though looking at the uAPI
eth_type and vlan_ethtype appear like a distinct fields, in flower they
are all mapped to the same key->basic.n_proto. Second, flow dissector
skips following VLAN header as no keys for FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_CVLAN are
set and eventually assigns the value of n_proto to last parsed header.
With these, such filters ignore any headers present between first VLAN
header and first "non magic" header (ipv4 in this case) that doesn't
result FLOW_DISSECT_RET_PROTO_AGAIN.
Is described behavior intentional? Any way to enforce matching for
header following the VLAN header?
Regards,
Vlad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists