Re: cls_matchall and port mirroring questions

[Ido Schimmel <idosch@mellanox.com>]

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 07:00:50PM -0800, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As I am adding support for cls_matchall in the b53/bcm_sf2 drivers, I
> was looking into several, yet unrelated things:
> 
> - mlxsw does not seem to specify whether the port used for capture
> remains usable, or blocks non-mirror traffic ingressing/egressing it, do
> we want a control knob for that? If not, what is a sensible default,
> block all non capture traffic?

Doesn't make sense to me to add such a default. It's up to the user.

> - do we have an updated man page for tc-matchall.8 that features how to
> use the statistical sampler too? b53 switches have a divider that allows
> us to select how many frames we want to receive (10 bit value).

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=5c5670fae43027778e84b9d9ff3b9d91a10a8131

Yotam (Cced) already commented that he intends to send iproute patches.

> - b53 supports capture against a particular MAC SA or DA (or both), do
> we want to be able to control that somehow?

Can't you just use flower (for example) instead of matchall in that
case?

> What about Marvell switches, what can they do?

No idea :)

> -  a fair amount of code dealing with the cls_matchall mirroring entry
> is not switch driver specific, in fact, the only things that are switch
> driver specific are:
> 	- list pointer where to store this entry (typically in the private
> network device context)
> 	- operation to check whether the device belongs to us (identical
> netdev_ops)
> 	- retrieval of the destination port number (to_port) which is also
> typically available in network device private context
> 
> Do we want to move a fair amount of code into switchdev, treat
> cls_matchall entries as a specific switchdev object, and have drivers
> take over at the same level that mlxsw_sp_port_add_cls_matchall_mirror()
> currently starts?

I prefer the current way in which we re-use as many as possible core
APIs without adding switchdev-specific code. I don't have a concrete
argument against your proposal, though.