Re: (Lack of) specification for RX n-tuple filtering

[Dimitris Michailidis <dm@chelsio.com>]

Ben Hutchings wrote:
> The n-tuple filtering facility is half-baked at present.  There is an
> interface to add filters but none to remove them!  And ETHTOOL_GRXNTUPLE
> is not at all symmetric with ETHTOOL_SRXNTUPLE (which I complained about
> at the time it was added, to no avail).

It's a bit worse than that.  Currently one can only append filters, not 
insert at a given position, as ethtool_rx_ntuple doesn't have an index 
field.  For devices that use TCAMs, where position matters, it's quite an 
obstacle.  It also means one cannot modify an existing filter by specifying 
a new filter for the same index.


> 
> An ETHTOOL_RESET command with flag ETH_RESET_FILTER set could be defined
> to clear all the filters, but that's a big hammer to use, and I think
> that in general drivers should push the same configuration back to the
> hardware after resetting it for whatever reason.
> 
> So far as I can work out, ixgbe clears all the filters when the filter
> table fills up.  Is that true?  Is this really the intended behaviour of
> manually set filters?
> 
> I also see this in the ixgbe implementation:
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Program the relevant mask registers.  If src/dst_port or src/dst_addr
> 	 * are zero, then assume a full mask for that field.  Also assume that
> 	 * a VLAN of 0 is unspecified, so mask that out as well.  L4type
> 	 * cannot be masked out in this implementation.
> 	 *
> 	 * This also assumes IPv4 only.  IPv6 masking isn't supported at this
> 	 * point in time.
> 	 */
> 
> An IPv4 address of 0 is certainly valid, so this isn't a good rule.  And
> in any case, such a rule should be specified *with the interface*, in
> <linux/ethtool.h>, not the implementation.
> 
> This also implies that 'mask' specifies bits to be ignored, not bits to
> be matched.  That also was not specified.
> 
> Ben.`
>