[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yjhgi48BpTGh6dig@nanopsycho>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 12:24:59 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...dia.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@...atatu.com>,
Maor Dickman <maord@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: cls_flower vlan matching
Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 06:26:38PM CET, vladbu@...dia.com wrote:
>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?
Looks very much like a bug to me.
>
>Regards,
>Vlad
Powered by blists - more mailing lists