netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>
To: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH xfrm-next v7 6/8] xfrm: speed-up lookup of HW policies
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2022 13:15:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y3td2OjeIL0GN7uO@unreal> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221121110926.GV704954@gauss3.secunet.de>

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:09:26PM +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 12:27:01PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:44:04AM +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 09:17:02PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:49:07AM +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:51:33PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 01:12:43PM +0100, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2022 at 02:54:34PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So this raises the question how to handle acquires with this packet
> > > > > > > offload. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We handle acquires as SW policies and don't offload them.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We trigger acquires with states, not policies. The thing is,
> > > > > we might match a HW policy but create a SW acquire state.
> > > > > This will not match anymore as soon as the lookup is
> > > > > implemented correctly.
> > > > 
> > > > For now, all such packets will be dropped as we have offlaoded
> > > > policy but not SA.
> > > 
> > > I think you missed my point. If the HW policy does not match
> > > the SW acquire state, then each packet will geneate a new
> > > acquire. So you need to make sure that policy and acquire
> > > state will match to send the acquire just once to userspace.
> > 
> > I think that I'm still missing the point.
> > 
> > We require both policy and SA to be offloaded. It means that once
> > we hit HW policy, we must hit SA too (at least this is how mlx5 part
> > is implemented).
> 
> Let's assume a packet hits a HW policy. Then this HW policy must match
> a HW state. In case there is no matching HW state, we generate an acquire
> and insert a larval state. Currently, larval states are never marked as HW.

And this is there our views are different. If HW (in RX) sees policy but
doesn't have state, this packet will be dropped in HW. It won't get to
stack and no acquire request will be issues.

> 
> Now, the next packet from the same flow maches again this HW policy,
> but it does not find the larval state because it is not marked as
> a HW state. So we generate another acquire and insert another
> larval state. Same happens for packets 3,4,5...
> 
> Expected behaviour for subsequent packets is that the lookup will
> find a matching HW larval state and the packet is dropped without
> creating another acquire + larval state for the same flow.
> 

This is why we don't support acquire for now as it will require mixing
HW and SW paths which we don't want for now.

Thanks

  reply	other threads:[~2022-11-21 11:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-09 12:54 [PATCH xfrm-next v7 0/8] Extend XFRM core to allow packet offload configuration Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-09 12:54 ` [PATCH xfrm-next v7 1/8] xfrm: add new packet offload flag Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-09 12:54 ` [PATCH xfrm-next v7 2/8] xfrm: allow state packet offload mode Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-09 12:54 ` [PATCH xfrm-next v7 3/8] xfrm: add an interface to offload policy Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-09 12:54 ` [PATCH xfrm-next v7 4/8] xfrm: add TX datapath support for IPsec packet offload mode Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-17 11:59   ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-17 12:32     ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-18 10:23       ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-21 11:10         ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-09 12:54 ` [PATCH xfrm-next v7 5/8] xfrm: add RX datapath protection " Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-09 12:54 ` [PATCH xfrm-next v7 6/8] xfrm: speed-up lookup of HW policies Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-17 12:12   ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-17 12:51     ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-18 10:49       ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-20 19:17         ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-21  9:44           ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-21 10:27             ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-21 11:09               ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-21 11:15                 ` Leon Romanovsky [this message]
2022-11-21 11:25                   ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-21 11:34                     ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-21 12:02                       ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-21 12:43                         ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-21 13:01                           ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-22 13:10                             ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-22 13:57                               ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-23  8:37                                 ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-23  9:36                                   ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-23 12:53                                     ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-24 11:07                                       ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-25  6:23                                         ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-21 12:10                       ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-21 13:21                         ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-22  4:29                           ` Herbert Xu
2022-11-22  6:27                             ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-22 13:00                               ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-22 13:54                                 ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-23  8:23                                   ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-23 10:25                                     ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-09 12:54 ` [PATCH xfrm-next v7 7/8] xfrm: add support to HW update soft and hard limits Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-17 12:13   ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-17 12:32     ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-09 12:54 ` [PATCH xfrm-next v7 8/8] xfrm: document IPsec packet offload mode Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-17 12:15   ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-17 12:33     ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-15 18:09 ` [PATCH xfrm-next v7 0/8] Extend XFRM core to allow packet offload configuration Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-15 18:30   ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-15 19:00     ` Leon Romanovsky
2022-11-16 23:07       ` Saeed Mahameed
2022-11-17 12:20         ` Steffen Klassert
2022-11-17 12:24           ` Leon Romanovsky

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=Y3td2OjeIL0GN7uO@unreal \
    --to=leon@kernel.org \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.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).