[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2c0c7f42-9e1d-7b4b-4c8d-bfb1a0ea3187@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 13:58:36 +0000
From: Edward Cree <ecree.xilinx@...il.com>
To: Michal Swiatkowski <michal.swiatkowski@...ux.intel.com>,
edward.cree@....com
Cc: linux-net-drivers@....com, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
habetsm.xilinx@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/5] sfc: add functions to insert encap matches
into the MAE
On 15/03/2023 09:23, Michal Swiatkowski wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 05:35:23PM +0000, edward.cree@....com wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6
>> + if (encap->src_ip | encap->dst_ip) {
>> +#endif
> Looks strange, in case CONFIG_IPV6 isn't defined You can also check if
> theres is no zero ip.
The idea is that #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6 then we use this to decide whether
this is an IPv4 or IPv6 filter, otherwise we don't need to check
anything because there's only IPv4. What would the alternative be,
put a WARN_ON_ONCE() and return -EINVAL in the else clause #ifndef
CONFIG_IPV6? Is that better?
I agree this does look strange.
>
>> + MCDI_STRUCT_SET_DWORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_SRC_IP4_BE,
>> + encap->src_ip);
>> + MCDI_STRUCT_SET_DWORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_SRC_IP4_BE_MASK,
>> + ~(__be32)0);
>> + MCDI_STRUCT_SET_DWORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_DST_IP4_BE,
>> + encap->dst_ip);
>> + MCDI_STRUCT_SET_DWORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_DST_IP4_BE_MASK,
>> + ~(__be32)0);
>> + MCDI_STRUCT_SET_WORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_ETHER_TYPE_BE,
>> + htons(ETH_P_IP));
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_IPV6
>> + } else {
>> + memcpy(MCDI_STRUCT_PTR(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_SRC_IP6_BE),
>> + &encap->src_ip6, sizeof(encap->src_ip6));
>> + memset(MCDI_STRUCT_PTR(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_SRC_IP6_BE_MASK),
>> + 0xff, sizeof(encap->src_ip6));
>> + memcpy(MCDI_STRUCT_PTR(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_DST_IP6_BE),
>> + &encap->dst_ip6, sizeof(encap->dst_ip6));
>> + memset(MCDI_STRUCT_PTR(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_DST_IP6_BE_MASK),
>> + 0xff, sizeof(encap->dst_ip6));
>> + MCDI_STRUCT_SET_WORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_ETHER_TYPE_BE,
>> + htons(ETH_P_IPV6));
>> + }
>> +#endif
>> + MCDI_STRUCT_SET_WORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_ETHER_TYPE_BE_MASK,
>> + ~(__be16)0);
>> + MCDI_STRUCT_SET_WORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_L4_DPORT_BE,
>> + encap->udp_dport);
>> + MCDI_STRUCT_SET_WORD_BE(match_crit, MAE_ENC_FIELD_PAIRS_ENC_L4_DPORT_BE_MASK,
>> + ~(__be16)0);
> Question, from tc we can set masks for matching fields. You are setting
> default one, because hardware doesn't support different masks?
See my reply on patch #1 about mask sets and overlap.
The hardware supports masks on some fields in the Outer Rule table,
although not (in the current version) L4 ports.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists