Re: [PATCH net-next v2 5/5] net/sched: flower: Consider the number of tags for vlan filters

[Boris Sukholitko <boris.sukholitko@broadcom.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5361 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 04:17:01PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 03:16:10PM CEST, boris.sukholitko@broadcom.com wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 02:12:15PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 01:40:49PM CEST, boris.sukholitko@broadcom.com wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 01:09:35PM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> >> >> Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12:02:36PM CEST, boris.sukholitko@broadcom.com wrote:
> >> >> >Currently the existence of vlan filters is conditional on the vlan
> >> >> >protocol being matched in the tc rule. I.e. the following rule:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >tc filter add dev eth1 ingress flower vlan_prio 5
> >> >> >
> >> >> >is illegal because we lack protocol 802.1q in the rule.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Having the num_of_vlans filter configured removes this restriction. The
> >> >> >following rule becomes ok:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >tc filter add dev eth1 ingress flower num_of_vlans 1 vlan_prio 5
> >> >> >
> >> >> >because we know that the packet is single tagged.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >We achieve the above by having is_vlan_key helper look at the number of
> >> >> 
> >> >> Sorry to be a nitpicker, but who's "we"? When I read the patch
> >> >> description, I need to understand clearly what the patch is doing, which
> >> >> is not this case. You suppose to command the codebase what to do.
> >> >> I fail to see that :/
> >> >> 
> >> >> 
> >> >
> >> >What do you think of the following description? The description consists
> >> >of two parts: the first provides motivation for the patch, the second is
> >> >the way the motivation is implemented. I've judiciously edited out the
> >> >"we"-word. :)
> >> >
> >> ><description>
> >> >
> >> >Currently the existence of vlan filters is conditional on the vlan
> >> >protocol being matched in the tc rule. I.e. the following rule:
> >> >
> >> >tc filter add dev eth1 ingress flower vlan_prio 5
> >> >
> >> >is illegal because vlan protocol (e.g. 802.1q) does not appear in the rule.
> >> >
> >> >Having the num_of_vlans filter configured removes this restriction. The
> >> >following rule becomes ok:
> >> >
> >> >tc filter add dev eth1 ingress flower num_of_vlans 1 vlan_prio 5
> >> 
> >> So this is what this patch allows?
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >> You are talking about it as it is
> >> already possible with the code before this patch being applied.
> >> 
> >
> >Sorry for the confusion. In the updated description I try to make the
> >distinction much clearer.
> >
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >because having num_of_vlans==1 implies that the packet is single tagged.
> >> >
> >> >To make the above possible, is_vlan_key helper is changed to look at the
> >> >number of vlans in addition to the vlan ethertype.
> >> 
> >> What "is changed"? You should tell the codebase what to do, what toadd,
> >> remove or change. If you did that, it would be very clear to the reader
> >> what the patch is supposed to do.
> >> 
> >
> >The "changed" refers to the code of is_vlan_key function which is
> >changed by this patch. Please see the updated description.
> >
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >Outer tag vlan filters (e.g.  vlan_prio) require the number of vlan tags
> >> >be greater than 0. Inner filters (e.g. cvlan_prio) require the number of
> >> >vlan tags be greater than 1.
> >> 
> >> Again, unclear what this describes, if the current code before the patch
> >> or the state after this patch.
> >> 
> >
> >What about the following:
> >
> ><description>
> >
> >Before this commit the existence of vlan filters was conditional on the vlan
> >protocol being matched in the tc rule. For example, the following rule:
> >
> >tc filter add dev eth1 ingress flower vlan_prio 5
> >
> >was illegal because vlan protocol (e.g. 802.1q) does not appear in the rule.
> >
> >This commit removes the above restriction. Having the num_of_vlans
> 
> Say rather just "Remove the above restriction. ..."
> 
> 
> >filter configured allows further matching on vlan attributes. The
> >following rule is ok now:
> >
> >tc filter add dev eth1 ingress flower num_of_vlans 1 vlan_prio 5
> >
> >because having num_of_vlans==1 implies that the packet is single tagged.
> >
> >To do this, this commit changes is_vlan_key helper to look at the number
> 
> "Change the is_vlan_key helper to look..."
> 
> Don't talk about "this commit".
> 

OK. The following incorporates both of the above suggestions:

<description>

Before this commit the existence of vlan filters was conditional on the vlan
protocol being matched in the tc rule. For example, the following rule:

tc filter add dev eth1 ingress flower vlan_prio 5

was illegal because vlan protocol (e.g. 802.1q) does not appear in the rule.

Remove the above restriction by looking at the num_of_vlans filter to
allow further matching on vlan attributes. The following rule is ok now:

tc filter add dev eth1 ingress flower num_of_vlans 1 vlan_prio 5

because having num_of_vlans==1 implies that the packet is single tagged.

Change is_vlan_key helper to look at the number of vlans in addition to
the vlan ethertype. Outer (e.g. vlan_prio) and inner (e.g.  cvlan_prio)
tag vlan filters require the number of vlan tags to be greater then 0
and 1 accordingly.

As a result of is_vlan_key change, the ethertype may be set to 0 when
matching on the number of vlans. Update fl_set_key_vlan to avoid setting
key, mask vlan_tpid for the 0 ethertype.

</description>

Thanks,
Boris.

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4221 bytes --]