* setting flow spec rules under vswitch configuration
@ 2012-10-09 9:37 Or Gerlitz
2012-10-09 16:48 ` Ben Hutchings
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Or Gerlitz @ 2012-10-09 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Hutchings; +Cc: Rony Efraim, netdev, Amir Vadai
Hi Ben,
Looking on kernel ethtool flow steering APIs in the context of a device
which is used as the uplink of a virtual switch, the admin should be able
to provide flow specification and action (e.g drop) that relates to traffic
coming from a specific port of the switch e.g that relates to a certain
VM,etc.
For that end, we need to be able to specify both the L3/L4 attributes of
the flow and an L2 spec, that is the L2 spec containing the destination MAC
can't be assumed as the one of that device.
Specifically, in struct ethtool_rx_ntuple_flow_spec, I think we should
let the
to provide an ethhdr even when L3/L4 spec is given, make sense? if yes, how
would you like to see this change, add a union entry that contains both,
or in
another way?
Or.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: setting flow spec rules under vswitch configuration
2012-10-09 9:37 setting flow spec rules under vswitch configuration Or Gerlitz
@ 2012-10-09 16:48 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-10-10 14:16 ` Or Gerlitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ben Hutchings @ 2012-10-09 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Or Gerlitz; +Cc: Rony Efraim, netdev, Amir Vadai
On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 11:37 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Looking on kernel ethtool flow steering APIs in the context of a device
> which is used as the uplink of a virtual switch, the admin should be able
> to provide flow specification and action (e.g drop) that relates to traffic
> coming from a specific port of the switch e.g that relates to a certain
> VM,etc.
>
> For that end, we need to be able to specify both the L3/L4 attributes of
> the flow and an L2 spec, that is the L2 spec containing the destination MAC
> can't be assumed as the one of that device.
>
> Specifically, in struct ethtool_rx_ntuple_flow_spec, I think we should
> let the
> to provide an ethhdr even when L3/L4 spec is given, make sense?
Yes, but the ethertype looks redundant - the inner type is implied by
the L3 flow type and the outer type for a VLAN-encapsulated packet
should be matched against ethtool_flow_ext::vlan_etype. Might be better
to avoid confusion by just specifying the L2 addresses.
> if yes, how
> would you like to see this change, add a union entry that contains both,
> or in
> another way?
struct ethtool_rx_ntuple_flow_spec is obsolete; struct
ethtool_rx_flow_spec is what we have to consider. That effectively has:
union ethtool_flow_union {
struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec tcp_ip4_spec;
struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec udp_ip4_spec;
struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec sctp_ip4_spec;
struct ethtool_ah_espip4_spec ah_ip4_spec;
struct ethtool_ah_espip4_spec esp_ip4_spec;
struct ethtool_usrip4_spec usr_ip4_spec;
struct ethhdr ether_spec;
/* above are up to 16 bytes long */
__u8 hdata[60];
} h_u;
struct ethtool_flow_ext {
__be16 vlan_etype;
__be16 vlan_tci;
__be32 data[2];
} h_ext;
union ethtool_flow_union m_u;
struct ethtool_flow_ext m_ext;
So ethtool_flow_union::hdata currently provides 44 bytes of padding
between the per-protocol flow specs and ethtool_flow_ext, which can be
reallocated to the *beginning* of ethtool_flow_ext. At some point we'll
presumably want to add IPv6 flow specs, which will use up 24 bytes of
that padding at the front. So we can potentially extend
ethtool_flow_ext by up to 20 bytes.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: setting flow spec rules under vswitch configuration
2012-10-09 16:48 ` Ben Hutchings
@ 2012-10-10 14:16 ` Or Gerlitz
2012-10-10 14:28 ` Ben Hutchings
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Or Gerlitz @ 2012-10-10 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Hutchings; +Cc: Rony Efraim, netdev, Amir Vadai
On 09/10/2012 18:48, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 11:37 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> Looking on kernel ethtool flow steering APIs in the context of a device
>> which is used as the uplink of a virtual switch, the admin should be able
>> to provide flow specification and action (e.g drop) that relates to traffic
>> coming from a specific port of the switch e.g that relates to a certain
>> VM,etc.
>>
>> For that end, we need to be able to specify both the L3/L4 attributes of
>> the flow and an L2 spec, that is the L2 spec containing the destination MAC
>> can't be assumed as the one of that device.
>>
>> Specifically, in struct ethtool_rx_ntuple_flow_spec, I think we should
>> let the
>> to provide an ethhdr even when L3/L4 spec is given, make sense?
> Yes, but the ethertype looks redundant - the inner type is implied by
> the L3 flow type and the outer type for a VLAN-encapsulated packet
> should be matched against ethtool_flow_ext::vlan_etype. Might be better
> to avoid confusion by just specifying the L2 addresses.
>
>> if yes, how
>> would you like to see this change, add a union entry that contains both,
>> or in
>> another way?
> struct ethtool_rx_ntuple_flow_spec is obsolete; struct
> ethtool_rx_flow_spec is what we have to consider. That effectively has:
>
> union ethtool_flow_union {
> struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec tcp_ip4_spec;
> struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec udp_ip4_spec;
> struct ethtool_tcpip4_spec sctp_ip4_spec;
> struct ethtool_ah_espip4_spec ah_ip4_spec;
> struct ethtool_ah_espip4_spec esp_ip4_spec;
> struct ethtool_usrip4_spec usr_ip4_spec;
> struct ethhdr ether_spec;
> /* above are up to 16 bytes long */
> __u8 hdata[60];
> } h_u;
> struct ethtool_flow_ext {
> __be16 vlan_etype;
> __be16 vlan_tci;
> __be32 data[2];
> } h_ext;
> union ethtool_flow_union m_u;
> struct ethtool_flow_ext m_ext;
>
> So ethtool_flow_union::hdata currently provides 44 bytes of padding
> between the per-protocol flow specs and ethtool_flow_ext, which can be
> reallocated to the *beginning* of ethtool_flow_ext. At some point we'll
> presumably want to add IPv6 flow specs, which will use up 24 bytes of
> that padding at the front. So we can potentially extend
> ethtool_flow_ext by up to 20 bytes.
>
> Ben.
>
Ben,
Thanks for setting the sketch of a plan here... so if we go little bit
into details, we can safely move 20 bytes from the hadata[60] field into
the beginning of struct ethtool_flow_ext, which will still allow old
user space to work with newer kernels. As for newer uses space that
would like to set mac addresses within
ethtool_flow_ext, how are they supposed to identify if the kernel
supports this extension (of the extension...)? this might be newbee
question, I didn't made many ethtool patches so far.
Also on a related note, what does the 64bit data field of
ethtool_flow_ext used for?
Or.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: setting flow spec rules under vswitch configuration
2012-10-10 14:16 ` Or Gerlitz
@ 2012-10-10 14:28 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-10-10 14:31 ` Or Gerlitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ben Hutchings @ 2012-10-10 14:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Or Gerlitz; +Cc: Rony Efraim, netdev, Amir Vadai
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 16:16 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
[...]
> Thanks for setting the sketch of a plan here... so if we go little bit
> into details, we can safely move 20 bytes from the hadata[60] field into
> the beginning of struct ethtool_flow_ext, which will still allow old
> user space to work with newer kernels. As for newer uses space that
> would like to set mac addresses within
> ethtool_flow_ext, how are they supposed to identify if the kernel
> supports this extension (of the extension...)?
Well they can't tell in advance, but we can define another flag in
flow_type like FLOW_EXT and existing drivers will reject flow specs with
that flag set.
> this might be newbee
> question, I didn't made many ethtool patches so far.
>
> Also on a related note, what does the 64bit data field of
> ethtool_flow_ext used for?
Driver-dependent. ixgbe uses it for something.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: setting flow spec rules under vswitch configuration
2012-10-10 14:28 ` Ben Hutchings
@ 2012-10-10 14:31 ` Or Gerlitz
2012-10-10 17:27 ` Ben Hutchings
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Or Gerlitz @ 2012-10-10 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ben Hutchings; +Cc: Rony Efraim, netdev, Amir Vadai
On 10/10/2012 16:28, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 16:16 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> [...]
>> >Thanks for setting the sketch of a plan here... so if we go little bit
>> >into details, we can safely move 20 bytes from the hadata[60] field into
>> >the beginning of struct ethtool_flow_ext, which will still allow old
>> >user space to work with newer kernels. As for newer uses space that
>> >would like to set mac addresses within
>> >ethtool_flow_ext, how are they supposed to identify if the kernel
>> >supports this extension (of the extension...)?
> Well they can't tell in advance, but we can define another flag in
> flow_type like FLOW_EXT and existing drivers will reject flow specs with
> that flag set.
I understand what we can add a flag which will be rejected by driver's
that don't support this ext,
can the same/similar flag be used for newer user space code to mark they
want this ext?
Or.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: setting flow spec rules under vswitch configuration
2012-10-10 14:31 ` Or Gerlitz
@ 2012-10-10 17:27 ` Ben Hutchings
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ben Hutchings @ 2012-10-10 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Or Gerlitz; +Cc: Rony Efraim, netdev, Amir Vadai
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 16:31 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 16:28, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 16:16 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >Thanks for setting the sketch of a plan here... so if we go little bit
> >> >into details, we can safely move 20 bytes from the hadata[60] field into
> >> >the beginning of struct ethtool_flow_ext, which will still allow old
> >> >user space to work with newer kernels. As for newer uses space that
> >> >would like to set mac addresses within
> >> >ethtool_flow_ext, how are they supposed to identify if the kernel
> >> >supports this extension (of the extension...)?
> > Well they can't tell in advance, but we can define another flag in
> > flow_type like FLOW_EXT and existing drivers will reject flow specs with
> > that flag set.
> I understand what we can add a flag which will be rejected by driver's
> that don't support this ext,
> can the same/similar flag be used for newer user space code to mark they
> want this ext?
Exactly.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-10-10 17:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-10-09 9:37 setting flow spec rules under vswitch configuration Or Gerlitz
2012-10-09 16:48 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-10-10 14:16 ` Or Gerlitz
2012-10-10 14:28 ` Ben Hutchings
2012-10-10 14:31 ` Or Gerlitz
2012-10-10 17:27 ` Ben Hutchings
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.