[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] examples/ipsec-secgw: add target queues in flow actions

[Anoob Joseph]

Hi Nelio,

On 30-11-2017 17:58, Nelio Laranjeiro wrote:
> Hi Annob,
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:16:23PM +0530, Anoob wrote:
>> On 11/29/2017 06:20 PM, Nelio Laranjeiro wrote:
>>> Hi Anoob,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 06:00:38PM +0530, Anoob wrote:
>>>>      Hi Nelio,
>>>>
>>>>      Since support of RSS with inline crypto/protocol is hardware
>>>>      implementation dependent, it would be better if there is some sort of
>>>>      capability check before setting the flow parameters in the application.
>>>>
>>>>      If the hardware doesn't support RSS with inline processing, then the RSS
>>>>      flow action will have to be ignored in the driver. This wouldn't look
>>>>      right from application's point of view. And also the PMD would need
>>>>      application-specific logic to handle such cases, which may not scale well.
>>> There is a real issue here, RTE_FLOW API needs a terminal action, security is
>>> not one [1] you must have one of the followings: QUEUE, DROP, RSS, PF,
>>> VF or PASSTHRU.
>>>
>>> Flow API does not work with "capabilities" as the application can verify
>>> the rule using the validate().  If it cannot be validated the
>>> application can test another kind of rule until the PMD returns a
>>> success.
>>>
>>> Here, I am proposing the RSS as RSS with a single queue is equivalent to queue.
>>>
>>> On Mellanox NIC we need the RSS or QUEUE in ingress and for Egress PASSTHRU
>>> is good.
>>>
>>> What are your needs?
>> Thanks for the clarification. Understood the issue here. On Cavium hardware
>> SECURITY will be terminating.
> You should finalise with PASSTHRU to be compliant with the API,
> otherwise application makers won't understand why it does not work
> according to the API implementation.
Cavium hardware would be supporting only terminating actions. So 
PASSTHRU will not be supported.
>> So a better approach would be to first check from the application
>> (using rte_flow_verify()) if SECURITY is terminating action. If it
>> fails, then application can do RSS/QUEUE. That should solve
>> the issue.
> <snip>
>
> I think we have an agreement here, in order the final action to be
> tested:
>
>   1. PASSTHRU
>   2. RSS
>   3. QUEUE
>
> If those 3 fails, the functions fails to create the rule, the first
> succeeding is the one applied.
PASSTHRU itself is non-terminating, right? So I'm not sure, how a check 
with PASSTHRU would help us. SECURITY will be terminating action on 
Cavium hardware. So, the first check could be without any addition. If 
that fails, RSS. And then QUEUE. That should be fine.

Any thoughts?
Anoob
>
> Do you agree?
>
> Thanks,
>