[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] app/testpmd: add support for integrity item

[Ori Kam]

Hi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> item
> 
> On 4/13/2021 8:53 AM, Ori Kam wrote:
> > Hi Ferruh,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>
> >>
> >> On 4/11/2021 6:34 PM, Gregory Etelson wrote:
> >>> From: Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>
> >>>
> >>> The integrity item allows the application to match
> >>> on the integrity of a packet.
> >>>
> >>> use example:
> >>> match that packet integrity checks are ok. The checks depend on
> >>> packet layers. For example ICMP packet will not check L4 level.
> >>> flow create 0 ingress pattern integrity value mask 0x01 value spec 0x01
> >>> match that L4 packet is ok - check L2 & L3 & L4 layers:
> >>> flow create 0 ingress pattern integrity value mask 0xfe value spec 0xfe
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Gregory Etelson <getelson at nvidia.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> v2 add testpmd patch
> >>> ---
> >>>    app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 39
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>
> >> Hi Gregory, Ori,
> >>
> >> Can you add some samples to "testpmd_funcs.rst#flow-rules-management"?
> >>
> >> I asked in some other thread but did not get any response, what do you think
> to
> >> make 'testpmd_funcs.rst' sample update mandatory when testpmd flow
> added?
> >>
> > I fully agree that each new function should be mandatory,
> 
> What is new function here, new flow API? That should go to flow API
> documentation, 'rte_flow.rst'.
> 
I mean something like for example new set,
create_shared_action..
I mean new total new commands.
Does it make sense?

> > The question is do we want that each new item / action (they  use existing
> function)
> > I think it is a bit of overhead but I don't have strong opinion.
> >
> 
> Since the documentation is for the testpmd usage sample, I was thinking to add
> sample for each new item & action indeed.
> Same of the flow rules not widely used, and it is not always clear how to use
> them, that is why I believe documenting samples can help.
> 
I fully agree with you, the question is how to do it,
since in some cases it is jut one line of code,
and in other cases it can be much more complex for example raw_encap,
the new Conntrack action.
I think we should think how we improve the examples in the rte_flow context,

> >>
> >>>    1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >>> index fb7a3a8bd3..b5dec34325 100644
> >>> --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> >>> @@ -289,6 +289,9 @@ enum index {
> >>>    	ITEM_GENEVE_OPT_TYPE,
> >>>    	ITEM_GENEVE_OPT_LENGTH,
> >>>    	ITEM_GENEVE_OPT_DATA,
> >>> +	ITEM_INTEGRITY,
> >>> +	ITEM_INTEGRITY_LEVEL,
> >>> +	ITEM_INTEGRITY_VALUE,
> >>>
> >>>    	/* Validate/create actions. */
> >>>    	ACTIONS,
> >>> @@ -956,6 +959,7 @@ static const enum index next_item[] = {
> >>>    	ITEM_PFCP,
> >>>    	ITEM_ECPRI,
> >>>    	ITEM_GENEVE_OPT,
> >>> +	ITEM_INTEGRITY,
> >>>    	END_SET,
> >>>    	ZERO,
> >>>    };
> >>> @@ -1307,6 +1311,19 @@ static const enum index item_geneve_opt[] = {
> >>>    	ZERO,
> >>>    };
> >>>
> >>> +static const enum index item_integrity[] = {
> >>> +	ITEM_INTEGRITY_LEVEL,
> >>> +	ITEM_INTEGRITY_VALUE,
> >>> +	ZERO,
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +static const enum index item_integrity_lv[] = {
> >>> +	ITEM_INTEGRITY_LEVEL,
> >>> +	ITEM_INTEGRITY_VALUE,
> >>> +	ITEM_NEXT,
> >>> +	ZERO,
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>>    static const enum index next_action[] = {
> >>>    	ACTION_END,
> >>>    	ACTION_VOID,
> >>> @@ -3373,6 +3390,28 @@ static const struct token token_list[] = {
> >>>    				(sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_geneve_opt),
> >>>    				ITEM_GENEVE_OPT_DATA_SIZE)),
> >>>    	},
> >>> +	[ITEM_INTEGRITY] = {
> >>> +		.name = "integrity",
> >>> +		.help = "match packet integrity",
> >>> +		.priv = PRIV_ITEM(INTEGRITY,
> >>> +				  sizeof(struct rte_flow_item_integrity)),
> >>> +		.next = NEXT(item_integrity),
> >>> +		.call = parse_vc,
> >>> +	},
> >>> +	[ITEM_INTEGRITY_LEVEL] = {
> >>> +		.name = "level",
> >>> +		.help = "integrity level",
> >>> +		.next = NEXT(item_integrity_lv, NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED),
> >>> +			     item_param),
> >>> +		.args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY(struct rte_flow_item_integrity,
> >> level)),
> >>> +	},
> >>> +	[ITEM_INTEGRITY_VALUE] = {
> >>> +		.name = "value",
> >>> +		.help = "integrity value",
> >>> +		.next = NEXT(item_integrity_lv, NEXT_ENTRY(UNSIGNED),
> >>> +			     item_param),
> >>> +		.args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY(struct rte_flow_item_integrity,
> >> value)),
> >>> +	},
> >>>    	/* Validate/create actions. */
> >>>    	[ACTIONS] = {
> >>>    		.name = "actions",
> >>>
> >