From: Davide Caratti <dcaratti@redhat.com>
To: "Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen" <ast@fiberby.net>
Cc: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@ovn.org>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/9] net/sched: cls_flower: prepare fl_{set,dump}_key_flags() for ENC_FLAGS
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 19:29:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZnxP_IHSJWg8FhfO@dcaratti.users.ipa.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d2df2837-070b-4669-8a35-c3d1341849d2@fiberby.net>
hello Asbjørn,
On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:55:31AM +0000, Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen wrote:
> Hi Davide,
>
> On 6/26/24 10:01 AM, Davide Caratti wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:49 AM Davide Caratti <dcaratti@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > So, we must htonl() the policy mask in the second hunk in patch 7,something like:
>
> Good catch.
>
> > or maybe better (but still untested), use NLA_BE32, like netfilter does in [1]
> >
> > [1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/A/ident/NF_NAT_RANGE_MASK
>
> Yes, that is better. It should work, as it triggers a htonl() in nla_validate_mask().
NLA_BE32 proved to fix the byte ordering problem:
- it allows to set TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_FLAGS_MASK and read it back consistently
- it sets correct FLOW_DIS_F_* bits in 'enc_control'
FTR, I used this hunk on top of your RFC series:
-- >8 --
--- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c
+++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
@@ -679,9 +679,9 @@ static const struct nla_policy fl_policy[TCA_FLOWER_MAX + 1] = {
[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_UDP_SRC_PORT_MASK] = { .type = NLA_U16 },
[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_UDP_DST_PORT] = { .type = NLA_U16 },
[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_UDP_DST_PORT_MASK] = { .type = NLA_U16 },
- [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_FLAGS] = NLA_POLICY_MASK(NLA_U32,
+ [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_FLAGS] = NLA_POLICY_MASK(NLA_BE32,
TCA_FLOWER_KEY_FLAGS_POLICY_MASK),
- [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_FLAGS_MASK] = NLA_POLICY_MASK(NLA_U32,
+ [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_FLAGS_MASK] = NLA_POLICY_MASK(NLA_BE32,
TCA_FLOWER_KEY_FLAGS_POLICY_MASK),
[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ICMPV4_TYPE] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ICMPV4_TYPE_MASK] = { .type = NLA_U8 },
@@ -744,9 +744,9 @@ static const struct nla_policy fl_policy[TCA_FLOWER_MAX + 1] = {
[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_SPI_MASK] = { .type = NLA_U32 },
[TCA_FLOWER_L2_MISS] = NLA_POLICY_MAX(NLA_U8, 1),
[TCA_FLOWER_KEY_CFM] = { .type = NLA_NESTED },
- [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_FLAGS] = NLA_POLICY_MASK(NLA_U32,
+ [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_FLAGS] = NLA_POLICY_MASK(NLA_BE32,
TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_FLAGS_POLICY_MASK),
- [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_FLAGS_MASK] = NLA_POLICY_MASK(NLA_U32,
+ [TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_FLAGS_MASK] = NLA_POLICY_MASK(NLA_BE32,
TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_FLAGS_POLICY_MASK),
};
-- >8 --
but I think I found another small problem. You removed FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_FLAGS
from TC flower, re-using 'enc_control' instead; however, the FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_CONTROL
bit is set only if flower tries to match 'enc_ipv4' or 'enc_ipv6'. We don't notice
the problem with 'ip_flags' because AFAIS flow dissector copies those bits even with
no relevant FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY* requested. When matching tunnel flags instead, we
will end up in skb_flow_dissect_tunne_info() with
/* A quick check to see if there might be something to do. */
if (!dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector,
FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_KEYID) &&
!dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector,
FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_IPV4_ADDRS) &&
!dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector,
FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_IPV6_ADDRS) &&
!dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector,
FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_CONTROL) &&
!dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector,
FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_PORTS) &&
!dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector,
FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_IP) &&
!dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector,
FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_OPTS))
return;
^^ a kernel that returns without loading tunnel info, because "there is nothing
to do". So, the attempt to put a valid value in patch9 regardless of the address
family is not sufficient. IMO it can be fixed with the following hunk:
-- >8 --
--- a/net/sched/cls_flower.c
+++ b/net/sched/cls_flower.c
@@ -2199,7 +2199,8 @@ static void fl_init_dissector(struct flow_dissector *dissector,
FL_KEY_SET_IF_MASKED(mask, keys, cnt,
FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_IPV6_ADDRS, enc_ipv6);
if (FL_KEY_IS_MASKED(mask, enc_ipv4) ||
- FL_KEY_IS_MASKED(mask, enc_ipv6))
+ FL_KEY_IS_MASKED(mask, enc_ipv6) ||
+ FL_KEY_IS_MASKED(mask, enc_control))
FL_KEY_SET(keys, cnt, FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_CONTROL,
enc_control);
FL_KEY_SET_IF_MASKED(mask, keys, cnt,
-- >8 --
at least it passes my functional test (that I didn't send yet, together with
iproute bits :( promise will do that now)
--
davide
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-06-26 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-06-11 23:53 [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] flower: rework TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_FLAGS usage Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-11 23:53 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 1/9] net/sched: flower: define new tunnel flags Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-12 15:01 ` Davide Caratti
2024-06-11 23:53 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 2/9] net/sched: cls_flower: prepare fl_{set,dump}_key_flags() for ENC_FLAGS Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-21 10:11 ` Davide Caratti
2024-06-21 14:45 ` Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-26 9:49 ` Davide Caratti
2024-06-26 10:01 ` Davide Caratti
2024-06-26 11:55 ` Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-26 17:29 ` Davide Caratti [this message]
2024-06-11 23:53 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 3/9] net/sched: cls_flower: add policy for TCA_FLOWER_KEY_FLAGS Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-11 23:53 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 4/9] flow_dissector: prepare for encapsulated control flags Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-11 23:53 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 5/9] flow_dissector: set encapsulated control flags from tun_flags Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-21 15:02 ` Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-11 23:53 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 6/9] net/sched: cls_flower: add tunnel flags to fl_{set,dump}_key_flags() Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-11 23:53 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 7/9] net/sched: cls_flower: rework TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_FLAGS usage Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-11 23:53 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 8/9] flow_dissector: cleanup FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ENC_FLAGS Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-11 23:53 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 9/9] flow_dissector: set encapsulation control flags for non-IP Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
2024-06-12 15:06 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 0/9] flower: rework TCA_FLOWER_KEY_ENC_FLAGS usage Davide Caratti
2024-06-12 19:07 ` Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZnxP_IHSJWg8FhfO@dcaratti.users.ipa.redhat.com \
--to=dcaratti@redhat.com \
--cc=ast@fiberby.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=i.maximets@ovn.org \
--cc=jhs@mojatatu.com \
--cc=jiri@resnulli.us \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).