[dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/5] net/softnic: update headers size calculation

[Dekel Peled]

PSB.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2020 12:30 PM
> To: Dekel Peled <dekelp at nvidia.com>; Xiaoyu Min
> <jackmin at mellanox.com>; Jasvinder Singh <jasvinder.singh at intel.com>;
> Cristian Dumitrescu <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/5] net/softnic: update headers size
> calculation
> 
> On 11/16/2020 7:09 PM, Dekel Peled wrote:
> 
> < Please don't top post, reply moved to the bottom >
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> >> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 6:27 PM
> >> To: Xiaoyu Min <jackmin at mellanox.com>; Jasvinder Singh
> >> <jasvinder.singh at intel.com>; Cristian Dumitrescu
> >> <cristian.dumitrescu at intel.com>
> >> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Dekel Peled <dekelp at nvidia.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 5/5] net/softnic: update headers size
> >> calculation
> >>
> >> On 11/16/2020 7:55 AM, Xiaoyu Min wrote:
> >>> From: Dekel Peled <dekelp at nvidia.com>
> >>>
> >>> The rte_flow_item_eth and rte_flow_item_vlan items were updated in
> >> [1].
> >>> The rte_flow_item_ipv6 item was updated in [2].
> >>> The structs now contain additional metadata following the header data.
> >>> The size to use for match should be the header data size only, and
> >>> not the size of the whole struct.
> >>>
> >>> This patch replaces the rte_flow_item_* with the corresponding
> >> rte_*_hdr.
> >>>
> >>> [1]:commit 09315fc83861 ("ethdev: add VLAN attributes to ethernet
> >>> and VLAN
> >>> items")
> >>>
> >>> [2]: commit ad976bd40d28 ("ethdev: add extensions attributes to IPv6
> >>> item")
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dekelp at nvidia.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    drivers/net/softnic/rte_eth_softnic_flow.c | 8 ++++----
> >>>    1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/softnic/rte_eth_softnic_flow.c
> >>> b/drivers/net/softnic/rte_eth_softnic_flow.c
> >>> index f05ff092fa..7925bad1c0 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/softnic/rte_eth_softnic_flow.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/softnic/rte_eth_softnic_flow.c
> >>> @@ -169,22 +169,22 @@ flow_item_is_proto(enum
> rte_flow_item_type
> >> type,
> >>>
> >>>    	case RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_ETH:
> >>>    		*mask = &rte_flow_item_eth_mask;
> >>> -		*size = sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_eth);
> >>> +		*size = sizeof(struct rte_ether_hdr);
> >>>    		return 1; /* TRUE */
> >>>
> >>>    	case RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_VLAN:
> >>>    		*mask = &rte_flow_item_vlan_mask;
> >>> -		*size = sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_vlan);
> >>> +		*size = sizeof(struct rte_vlan_hdr);
> >>>    		return 1;
> >>>
> >>>    	case RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV4:
> >>>    		*mask = &rte_flow_item_ipv4_mask;
> >>> -		*size = sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_ipv4);
> >>> +		*size = sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr);
> >>>    		return 1;
> >>>
> >>>    	case RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_IPV6:
> >>>    		*mask = &rte_flow_item_ipv6_mask;
> >>> -		*size = sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_ipv6);
> >>> +		*size = sizeof(struct rte_ipv6_hdr);
> >>>    		return 1;
> >>>
> >>
> >> As far as I can see the 'flow_item_is_proto' sets the size to be used
> >> over 'rte_flow_item_*" types, the original values seems correct to
> >> me, am I missing something.
> >>
> >> Can you please elaborate why the change is needed?
> >
>  > Hi Ferruh,
>  >
>  > The failure occur at hash_key_mask_is_same() which uses the size
> returned by
> flow_item_is_proto() for comparison.
>  > Since the rte_flow_item_* of some types is now different than the
> rte_*_hdr size of these types, need to use the rte_*_hdr size.
>  >
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Using "rte_*_hdr" structs size will strip the new additions to the
> "rte_flow_item_*" structs and won't able to use them.
> But at least using old sizes should preserve old functionality and prevent any
> unexpected side affect, so I am OK to continue with this change but code
> needs to be updated later to benefit from latest "rte_flow_item_*" structs.
> 
> Cristian, Jasvinder,
> 
> Can you please acknowledge that you are aware of the reason of this change
> and possible updates may be required later?

Please see related issues fixed by this patch:
https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=564
https://bugs.dpdk.org/show_bug.cgi?id=565