* [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port
@ 2017-11-13 16:13 Anoob Joseph
2017-11-13 17:23 ` Radu Nicolau
2017-11-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v2] " Anoob Joseph
0 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Anoob Joseph @ 2017-11-13 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau
Cc: narayanaprasad.athreya, jerin.jacobkollanukkaran, anoob.joseph, dev
When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the
port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that
port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in
unencrypted packets being sent out.
This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM
lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode.
Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload")
Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@cavium.com>
---
examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 92 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c
index c98454a..80cdff3 100644
--- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c
+++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c
@@ -585,31 +585,72 @@ process_pkts_outbound_nosp(struct ipsec_ctx *ipsec_ctx,
traffic->ip6.num = nb_pkts_out;
}
+static inline int32_t
+get_hop_for_offload_pkt(struct rte_mbuf *pkt)
+{
+ struct ipsec_mbuf_metadata *priv;
+ struct ipsec_sa *sa;
+
+ priv = get_priv(pkt);
+
+ sa = priv->sa;
+ if (unlikely(sa == NULL)) {
+ RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC, "SA not saved in private data\n");
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ return sa->portid;
+}
+
static inline void
route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts)
{
uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2];
uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2];
+ int32_t pkt_hop = 0;
uint16_t i, offset;
+ uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0;
if (nb_pkts == 0)
return;
+ /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets
+ * will have port ID in the SA
+ */
+
for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) {
- offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst);
- dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i],
- uint32_t *, offset);
- dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]);
+ if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) {
+ /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is
+ * required to get the hop
+ */
+ offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst);
+ dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i],
+ uint32_t *, offset);
+ dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]);
+ lpm_pkts++;
+ }
}
- rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, nb_pkts);
+ rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, lpm_pkts);
+
+ lpm_pkts = 0;
for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) {
- if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) {
+ if ((pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) {
+ /* Read hop from the SA */
+ pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]);
+ } else {
+ /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */
+ pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++];
+ if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0)
+ pkt_hop = -1;
+ }
+
+ if (pkt_hop == -1) {
rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]);
continue;
}
- send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff);
+ send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff);
}
}
@@ -619,26 +660,49 @@ route6_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts)
int32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2];
uint8_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2][16];
uint8_t *ip6_dst;
+ int32_t pkt_hop = 0;
uint16_t i, offset;
+ uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0;
if (nb_pkts == 0)
return;
+ /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets
+ * will have port ID in the SA
+ */
+
for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) {
- offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst);
- ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, offset);
- memcpy(&dst_ip[i][0], ip6_dst, 16);
+ if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) {
+ /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is
+ * required to get the hop
+ */
+ offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst);
+ ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *,
+ offset);
+ memcpy(&dst_ip[lpm_pkts][0], ip6_dst, 16);
+ lpm_pkts++;
+ }
}
- rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip,
- hop, nb_pkts);
+ rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop,
+ lpm_pkts);
+
+ lpm_pkts = 0;
for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) {
- if (hop[i] == -1) {
+ if ((pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) == 0) {
+ /* Read hop from the SA */
+ pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]);
+ } else {
+ /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */
+ pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++];
+ }
+
+ if (pkt_hop == -1) {
rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]);
continue;
}
- send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff);
+ send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff);
}
}
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-13 16:13 [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port Anoob Joseph @ 2017-11-13 17:23 ` Radu Nicolau 2017-11-13 19:24 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-11-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v2] " Anoob Joseph 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Radu Nicolau @ 2017-11-13 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anoob Joseph, Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Cc: narayanaprasad.athreya, jerin.jacobkollanukkaran, dev Hi, Comments below On 11/13/2017 4:13 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the > port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that > port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in > unencrypted packets being sent out. With a properly configured SP, SA and routing rule this will not happen, so we don't need to do this fix to make up for a wrongly written configuration file. I'm almost sure that the app will behave in the same way (i.e. forward unencrypted) for lookaside crypto if the configuration is incorrect. > > This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM > lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. Yes, there will be some performance gain, but not sure how much considering that LPM lookup is reasonably fast. So I'm not sure if ack or nack, maybe Sergio can give a second opinion. But if ack, you will have to update the patch to include in the doc this behavior, the port configured in the SA takes precedence over the one in the routing rule. Regards, Radu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-13 17:23 ` Radu Nicolau @ 2017-11-13 19:24 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-11-14 12:01 ` Nicolau, Radu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Anoob Joseph @ 2017-11-13 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Radu Nicolau, Anoob Joseph, Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Cc: narayanaprasad.athreya, jerin.jacobkollanukkaran, dev Hi, Comments below On 13-11-2017 22:53, Radu Nicolau wrote: > Hi, > > Comments below > > On 11/13/2017 4:13 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote: >> When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the >> port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that >> port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in >> unencrypted packets being sent out. > With a properly configured SP, SA and routing rule this will not > happen, so we don't need to do this fix to make up for a wrongly > written configuration file. > I'm almost sure that the app will behave in the same way (i.e. forward > unencrypted) for lookaside crypto if the configuration is incorrect. The lookaside crypto will ensure encryption, even if the LPM port is different. >> >> This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM >> lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. > Yes, there will be some performance gain, but not sure how much > considering that LPM lookup is reasonably fast. The 2nd lookup is significant for inline protocol for which I plan to submit some patches. In case of inline protocol, the packet need not have final headers by the time it is submitted to the ethernet driver. For example, in case of ESP in tunnel mode, tunnel IPs from the SA need to be used for LPM lookup. So all such cases(tunnel/transport, ipv4 tunnel in ipv6 and vice versa etc) need to be valuated and the final addresses need to be determined before an LPM lookup can be done, which adds significant overhead per packet. > > So I'm not sure if ack or nack, maybe Sergio can give a second opinion. > But if ack, you will have to update the patch to include in the doc > this behavior, the port configured in the SA takes precedence over the > one in the routing rule. > > Regards, > Radu Thanks, Anoob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-13 19:24 ` Anoob Joseph @ 2017-11-14 12:01 ` Nicolau, Radu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Nicolau, Radu @ 2017-11-14 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anoob Joseph, Anoob Joseph, Akhil Goyal, Doherty, Declan, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio Cc: narayanaprasad.athreya, jerin.jacobkollanukkaran, dev Hi, Please send a v2 with the doc update that describes the new behavior and I will ack it. Regards, Radu > -----Original Message----- > From: Anoob Joseph [mailto:ajoseph@caviumnetworks.com] > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 7:25 PM > To: Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau@intel.com>; Anoob Joseph > <anoob.joseph@cavium.com>; Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; > Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>; Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio > <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> > Cc: narayanaprasad.athreya@cavium.com; > jerin.jacobkollanukkaran@cavium.com; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port > > Hi, > > Comments below > > > On 13-11-2017 22:53, Radu Nicolau wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Comments below > > > > On 11/13/2017 4:13 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > >> When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on > >> the port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on > >> that port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in > >> unencrypted packets being sent out. > > With a properly configured SP, SA and routing rule this will not > > happen, so we don't need to do this fix to make up for a wrongly > > written configuration file. > > I'm almost sure that the app will behave in the same way (i.e. forward > > unencrypted) for lookaside crypto if the configuration is incorrect. > The lookaside crypto will ensure encryption, even if the LPM port is different. > >> > >> This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM > >> lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. > > Yes, there will be some performance gain, but not sure how much > > considering that LPM lookup is reasonably fast. > The 2nd lookup is significant for inline protocol for which I plan to submit > some patches. In case of inline protocol, the packet need not have final > headers by the time it is submitted to the ethernet driver. > For example, in case of ESP in tunnel mode, tunnel IPs from the SA need to > be used for LPM lookup. So all such cases(tunnel/transport, ipv4 tunnel in > ipv6 and vice versa etc) need to be valuated and the final addresses need to > be determined before an LPM lookup can be done, which adds significant > overhead per packet. > > > > So I'm not sure if ack or nack, maybe Sergio can give a second opinion. > > But if ack, you will have to update the patch to include in the doc > > this behavior, the port configured in the SA takes precedence over the > > one in the routing rule. > > > > Regards, > > Radu > > Thanks, > Anoob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-13 16:13 [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port Anoob Joseph 2017-11-13 17:23 ` Radu Nicolau @ 2017-11-14 15:37 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-11-14 16:16 ` Radu Nicolau 2017-11-15 9:41 ` [PATCH v3] " Anoob Joseph 1 sibling, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Anoob Joseph @ 2017-11-14 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being sent out. This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> --- v2: * Updated documentation with the change in behavior for outbound inline offloaded packets. doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst | 10 +++- examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst index d6cfdbf..d04e153 100644 --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ In case of complete protocol offload, the processing of headers(ESP and outer IP header) is done by the hardware and the application does not need to add/remove them during outbound/inbound processing. +For inline offloaded outbound traffic, the application need not do the LPM +lookup for routing, as the port on which the packet has to be forwarded, will +be part of the SA. Security parameters will be configured on that port only, +and sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being +sent out. + The Path for IPsec Inbound traffic is: * Read packets from the port. @@ -543,7 +549,9 @@ where each options means: ``<port_id>`` * Port/device ID of the ethernet/crypto accelerator for which the SA is - configured. This option is used when *type* is NOT *no-offload* + configured. For *inline-crypto-offload* and *inline-protocol-offload*, this + port will be used for routing. The routing table will not be referred in + this case. * Optional: No, if *type* is not *no-offload* diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c index c98454a..80cdff3 100644 --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c @@ -585,31 +585,72 @@ process_pkts_outbound_nosp(struct ipsec_ctx *ipsec_ctx, traffic->ip6.num = nb_pkts_out; } +static inline int32_t +get_hop_for_offload_pkt(struct rte_mbuf *pkt) +{ + struct ipsec_mbuf_metadata *priv; + struct ipsec_sa *sa; + + priv = get_priv(pkt); + + sa = priv->sa; + if (unlikely(sa == NULL)) { + RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC, "SA not saved in private data\n"); + return -1; + } + + return sa->portid; +} + static inline void route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) { uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; uint16_t i, offset; + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; if (nb_pkts == 0) return; + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets + * will have port ID in the SA + */ + for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], - uint32_t *, offset); - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is + * required to get the hop + */ + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], + uint32_t *, offset); + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); + lpm_pkts++; + } } - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, nb_pkts); + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, lpm_pkts); + + lpm_pkts = 0; for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { + if ((pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { + /* Read hop from the SA */ + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); + } else { + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) + pkt_hop = -1; + } + + if (pkt_hop == -1) { rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); continue; } - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); } } @@ -619,26 +660,49 @@ route6_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) int32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; uint8_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2][16]; uint8_t *ip6_dst; + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; uint16_t i, offset; + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; if (nb_pkts == 0) return; + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets + * will have port ID in the SA + */ + for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); - ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, offset); - memcpy(&dst_ip[i][0], ip6_dst, 16); + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is + * required to get the hop + */ + offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); + ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, + offset); + memcpy(&dst_ip[lpm_pkts][0], ip6_dst, 16); + lpm_pkts++; + } } - rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, - hop, nb_pkts); + rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, + lpm_pkts); + + lpm_pkts = 0; for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - if (hop[i] == -1) { + if ((pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) == 0) { + /* Read hop from the SA */ + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); + } else { + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; + } + + if (pkt_hop == -1) { rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); continue; } - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); } } -- 2.7.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v2] " Anoob Joseph @ 2017-11-14 16:16 ` Radu Nicolau 2017-11-15 9:41 ` [PATCH v3] " Anoob Joseph 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Radu Nicolau @ 2017-11-14 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anoob Joseph, Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev On 11/14/2017 3:37 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the > port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that > port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in > unencrypted packets being sent out. > > This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM > lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. > > Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") > > Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> > --- > v2: > * Updated documentation with the change in behavior for outbound inline > offloaded packets. > > doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst | 10 +++- > examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > index d6cfdbf..d04e153 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ In case of complete protocol offload, the processing of headers(ESP and outer > IP header) is done by the hardware and the application does not need to > add/remove them during outbound/inbound processing. > > +For inline offloaded outbound traffic, the application need not do the LPM > +lookup for routing, as the port on which the packet has to be forwarded, will extra comma......................................................................................................................^here And maybe change need not to will not, to reflect the actual behavior. > <snip> > > @@ -619,26 +660,49 @@ route6_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) > int32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; > uint8_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2][16]; > uint8_t *ip6_dst; > + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; > uint16_t i, offset; > + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; > > if (nb_pkts == 0) > return; > > + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets > + * will have port ID in the SA > + */ > + > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); > - ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, offset); > - memcpy(&dst_ip[i][0], ip6_dst, 16); > + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { > + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is > + * required to get the hop > + */ > + offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); > + ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, > + offset); > + memcpy(&dst_ip[lpm_pkts][0], ip6_dst, 16); > + lpm_pkts++; > + } > } > > - rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, > - hop, nb_pkts); > + rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, > + lpm_pkts); > + > + lpm_pkts = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - if (hop[i] == -1) { > + if ((pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) == 0) { The if condition is wrong here. > + /* Read hop from the SA */ > + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); > + } else { > + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ > + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; > + } > + > + if (pkt_hop == -1) { > rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); > continue; > } > - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); > + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); > } > } > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v2] " Anoob Joseph 2017-11-14 16:16 ` Radu Nicolau @ 2017-11-15 9:41 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-11-24 9:28 ` Akhil Goyal 2017-12-11 15:35 ` [PATCH v4] " Anoob Joseph 1 sibling, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Anoob Joseph @ 2017-11-15 9:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being sent out. This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> --- v3 * Bug fix (fixed a wrong if condition) * Minor changes in documentation v2: * Updated documentation with the change in behavior for outbound inline offloaded packets. doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst | 10 +++- examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst index d6cfdbf..ae18acd 100644 --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ In case of complete protocol offload, the processing of headers(ESP and outer IP header) is done by the hardware and the application does not need to add/remove them during outbound/inbound processing. +For inline offloaded outbound traffic, the application will not do the LPM +lookup for routing, as the port on which the packet has to be forwarded will be +part of the SA. Security parameters will be configured on that port only, and +sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being +sent out. + The Path for IPsec Inbound traffic is: * Read packets from the port. @@ -543,7 +549,9 @@ where each options means: ``<port_id>`` * Port/device ID of the ethernet/crypto accelerator for which the SA is - configured. This option is used when *type* is NOT *no-offload* + configured. For *inline-crypto-offload* and *inline-protocol-offload*, this + port will be used for routing. The routing table will not be referred in + this case. * Optional: No, if *type* is not *no-offload* diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c index c98454a..cfcb9d5 100644 --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c @@ -585,31 +585,72 @@ process_pkts_outbound_nosp(struct ipsec_ctx *ipsec_ctx, traffic->ip6.num = nb_pkts_out; } +static inline int32_t +get_hop_for_offload_pkt(struct rte_mbuf *pkt) +{ + struct ipsec_mbuf_metadata *priv; + struct ipsec_sa *sa; + + priv = get_priv(pkt); + + sa = priv->sa; + if (unlikely(sa == NULL)) { + RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC, "SA not saved in private data\n"); + return -1; + } + + return sa->portid; +} + static inline void route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) { uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; uint16_t i, offset; + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; if (nb_pkts == 0) return; + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets + * will have port ID in the SA + */ + for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], - uint32_t *, offset); - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is + * required to get the hop + */ + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], + uint32_t *, offset); + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); + lpm_pkts++; + } } - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, nb_pkts); + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, lpm_pkts); + + lpm_pkts = 0; for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { + /* Read hop from the SA */ + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); + } else { + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) + pkt_hop = -1; + } + + if (pkt_hop == -1) { rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); continue; } - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); } } @@ -619,26 +660,49 @@ route6_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) int32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; uint8_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2][16]; uint8_t *ip6_dst; + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; uint16_t i, offset; + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; if (nb_pkts == 0) return; + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets + * will have port ID in the SA + */ + for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); - ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, offset); - memcpy(&dst_ip[i][0], ip6_dst, 16); + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is + * required to get the hop + */ + offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); + ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, + offset); + memcpy(&dst_ip[lpm_pkts][0], ip6_dst, 16); + lpm_pkts++; + } } - rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, - hop, nb_pkts); + rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, + lpm_pkts); + + lpm_pkts = 0; for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - if (hop[i] == -1) { + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { + /* Read hop from the SA */ + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); + } else { + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; + } + + if (pkt_hop == -1) { rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); continue; } - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); } } -- 2.7.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-15 9:41 ` [PATCH v3] " Anoob Joseph @ 2017-11-24 9:28 ` Akhil Goyal 2017-11-24 9:58 ` Anoob 2017-12-11 15:35 ` [PATCH v4] " Anoob Joseph 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Akhil Goyal @ 2017-11-24 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anoob Joseph, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev Hi Anoob, On 11/15/2017 3:11 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the > port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that > port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in > unencrypted packets being sent out. > > This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM > lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. > > Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") > > Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> > --- > v3 > * Bug fix (fixed a wrong if condition) > * Minor changes in documentation > > v2: > * Updated documentation with the change in behavior for outbound inline > offloaded packets. > > doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst | 10 +++- > examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > index d6cfdbf..ae18acd 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ In case of complete protocol offload, the processing of headers(ESP and outer > IP header) is done by the hardware and the application does not need to > add/remove them during outbound/inbound processing. > > +For inline offloaded outbound traffic, the application will not do the LPM > +lookup for routing, as the port on which the packet has to be forwarded will be > +part of the SA. Security parameters will be configured on that port only, and > +sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being > +sent out. > + > The Path for IPsec Inbound traffic is: > > * Read packets from the port. > @@ -543,7 +549,9 @@ where each options means: > ``<port_id>`` > > * Port/device ID of the ethernet/crypto accelerator for which the SA is > - configured. This option is used when *type* is NOT *no-offload* > + configured. For *inline-crypto-offload* and *inline-protocol-offload*, this > + port will be used for routing. The routing table will not be referred in > + this case. > > * Optional: No, if *type* is not *no-offload* > > diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c > index c98454a..cfcb9d5 100644 > --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c > +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c > @@ -585,31 +585,72 @@ process_pkts_outbound_nosp(struct ipsec_ctx *ipsec_ctx, > traffic->ip6.num = nb_pkts_out; > } > > +static inline int32_t > +get_hop_for_offload_pkt(struct rte_mbuf *pkt) > +{ > + struct ipsec_mbuf_metadata *priv; > + struct ipsec_sa *sa; > + > + priv = get_priv(pkt); > + > + sa = priv->sa; > + if (unlikely(sa == NULL)) { > + RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC, "SA not saved in private data\n"); > + return -1; > + } > + > + return sa->portid; > +} > + > static inline void > route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) > { > uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; > uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; > + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; > uint16_t i, offset; > + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; > > if (nb_pkts == 0) > return; > > + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets > + * will have port ID in the SA > + */ > + > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); > - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], > - uint32_t *, offset); > - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); > + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { > + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is > + * required to get the hop > + */ > + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); > + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], > + uint32_t *, offset); > + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); > + lpm_pkts++; > + } > } > > - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, nb_pkts); > + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, lpm_pkts); > + > + lpm_pkts = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { > + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { > + /* Read hop from the SA */ > + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); > + } else { > + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ > + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; > + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) > + pkt_hop = -1; > + } > + I believe the following check is redundant for non inline case. I believe get_hop_for_offload_pkt can also set the RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS if route is success and take the (pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0 check outside the if else block and free the packet if it is unsuccessful. Same comment for route6_pkts. Checking with -1 may not be a good idea if we have a flag available for the same. Others can comment. > + if (pkt_hop == -1) { > rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); > continue; > } > - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); > + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); > } > } > > @@ -619,26 +660,49 @@ route6_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) > int32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; > uint8_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2][16]; > uint8_t *ip6_dst; > + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; > uint16_t i, offset; > + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; > > if (nb_pkts == 0) > return; > > + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets > + * will have port ID in the SA > + */ > + > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); > - ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, offset); > - memcpy(&dst_ip[i][0], ip6_dst, 16); > + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { > + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is > + * required to get the hop > + */ > + offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); > + ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, > + offset); > + memcpy(&dst_ip[lpm_pkts][0], ip6_dst, 16); > + lpm_pkts++; > + } > } > > - rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, > - hop, nb_pkts); > + rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, > + lpm_pkts); > + > + lpm_pkts = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - if (hop[i] == -1) { > + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { > + /* Read hop from the SA */ > + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); > + } else { > + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ > + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; > + } > + > + if (pkt_hop == -1) { > rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); > continue; > } > - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); > + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); > } > } > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-24 9:28 ` Akhil Goyal @ 2017-11-24 9:58 ` Anoob 2017-11-24 10:49 ` Akhil Goyal 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Anoob @ 2017-11-24 9:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev Hi Akhil, Please see inline. Thanks, Anoob On 11/24/2017 02:58 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote: > Hi Anoob, > > On 11/15/2017 3:11 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote: >> When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the >> port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that >> port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in >> unencrypted packets being sent out. >> >> This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM >> lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. >> >> Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") >> >> Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> >> --- >> v3 >> * Bug fix (fixed a wrong if condition) >> * Minor changes in documentation >> >> v2: >> * Updated documentation with the change in behavior for outbound inline >> offloaded packets. >> >> doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst | 10 +++- >> examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 92 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- >> 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst >> b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst >> index d6cfdbf..ae18acd 100644 >> --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst >> +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst >> @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ In case of complete protocol offload, the >> processing of headers(ESP and outer >> IP header) is done by the hardware and the application does not >> need to >> add/remove them during outbound/inbound processing. >> +For inline offloaded outbound traffic, the application will not do >> the LPM >> +lookup for routing, as the port on which the packet has to be >> forwarded will be >> +part of the SA. Security parameters will be configured on that port >> only, and >> +sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted >> packets being >> +sent out. >> + >> The Path for IPsec Inbound traffic is: >> * Read packets from the port. >> @@ -543,7 +549,9 @@ where each options means: >> ``<port_id>`` >> * Port/device ID of the ethernet/crypto accelerator for which >> the SA is >> - configured. This option is used when *type* is NOT *no-offload* >> + configured. For *inline-crypto-offload* and >> *inline-protocol-offload*, this >> + port will be used for routing. The routing table will not be >> referred in >> + this case. >> * Optional: No, if *type* is not *no-offload* >> diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c >> b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c >> index c98454a..cfcb9d5 100644 >> --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c >> +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c >> @@ -585,31 +585,72 @@ process_pkts_outbound_nosp(struct ipsec_ctx >> *ipsec_ctx, >> traffic->ip6.num = nb_pkts_out; >> } >> +static inline int32_t >> +get_hop_for_offload_pkt(struct rte_mbuf *pkt) >> +{ >> + struct ipsec_mbuf_metadata *priv; >> + struct ipsec_sa *sa; >> + >> + priv = get_priv(pkt); >> + >> + sa = priv->sa; >> + if (unlikely(sa == NULL)) { >> + RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC, "SA not saved in private data\n"); >> + return -1; >> + } >> + >> + return sa->portid; >> +} >> + >> static inline void >> route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t >> nb_pkts) >> { >> uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >> uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >> + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; >> uint16_t i, offset; >> + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; >> if (nb_pkts == 0) >> return; >> + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload >> packets >> + * will have port ID in the SA >> + */ >> + >> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >> - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >> - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >> - uint32_t *, offset); >> - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); >> + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { >> + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is >> + * required to get the hop >> + */ >> + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >> + uint32_t *, offset); >> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); >> + lpm_pkts++; >> + } >> } >> - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >> nb_pkts); >> + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >> lpm_pkts); >> + >> + lpm_pkts = 0; >> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >> - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { >> + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { >> + /* Read hop from the SA */ >> + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); >> + } else { >> + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ >> + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; >> + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) >> + pkt_hop = -1; >> + } >> + > I believe the following check is redundant for non inline case. I > believe get_hop_for_offload_pkt can also set the > RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS if route is success and take the (pkt_hop & > RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0 check outside the if else block and free > the packet if it is unsuccessful. > > Same comment for route6_pkts. Checking with -1 may not be a good idea > if we have a flag available for the same. > Others can comment. The problem is ipv4 & ipv6 LPM lookups return different error values, but we are using a single routine to get the hop for offload packets. The flag(RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) is only for ipv4 lookups. For ipv6, error is -1. If we need a cleaner solution, we can have ipv4 & ipv6 variants of "get_hop_for_offload_pkt". But that would be repetition of some code. > >> + if (pkt_hop == -1) { >> rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); >> continue; >> } >> - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); >> + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); >> } >> } >> @@ -619,26 +660,49 @@ route6_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct >> rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) >> int32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >> uint8_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2][16]; >> uint8_t *ip6_dst; >> + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; >> uint16_t i, offset; >> + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; >> if (nb_pkts == 0) >> return; >> + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload >> packets >> + * will have port ID in the SA >> + */ >> + >> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >> - offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); >> - ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, offset); >> - memcpy(&dst_ip[i][0], ip6_dst, 16); >> + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { >> + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is >> + * required to get the hop >> + */ >> + offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); >> + ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, >> + offset); >> + memcpy(&dst_ip[lpm_pkts][0], ip6_dst, 16); >> + lpm_pkts++; >> + } >> } >> - rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, >> - hop, nb_pkts); >> + rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >> + lpm_pkts); >> + >> + lpm_pkts = 0; >> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >> - if (hop[i] == -1) { >> + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { >> + /* Read hop from the SA */ >> + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); >> + } else { >> + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ >> + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; >> + } >> + >> + if (pkt_hop == -1) { >> rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); >> continue; >> } >> - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); >> + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); >> } >> } >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-24 9:58 ` Anoob @ 2017-11-24 10:49 ` Akhil Goyal 2017-11-29 4:21 ` Anoob Joseph 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Akhil Goyal @ 2017-11-24 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anoob, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev Hi Anoob, On 11/24/2017 3:28 PM, Anoob wrote: >>> static inline void >>> route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t >>> nb_pkts) >>> { >>> uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>> uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>> + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; >>> uint16_t i, offset; >>> + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; >>> if (nb_pkts == 0) >>> return; >>> + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload >>> packets >>> + * will have port ID in the SA >>> + */ >>> + >>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>> - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>> - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>> - uint32_t *, offset); >>> - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); >>> + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { >>> + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is >>> + * required to get the hop >>> + */ >>> + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>> + uint32_t *, offset); >>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); >>> + lpm_pkts++; >>> + } >>> } >>> - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >>> nb_pkts); >>> + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >>> lpm_pkts); >>> + >>> + lpm_pkts = 0; >>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>> - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { >>> + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { >>> + /* Read hop from the SA */ >>> + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); >>> + } else { >>> + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ >>> + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; >>> + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) >>> + pkt_hop = -1; >>> + } >>> + >> I believe the following check is redundant for non inline case. I >> believe get_hop_for_offload_pkt can also set the >> RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS if route is success and take the (pkt_hop & >> RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0 check outside the if else block and free >> the packet if it is unsuccessful. >> >> Same comment for route6_pkts. Checking with -1 may not be a good idea >> if we have a flag available for the same. >> Others can comment. > The problem is ipv4 & ipv6 LPM lookups return different error values, > but we are using a single routine to get the hop for offload packets. > The flag(RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) is only for ipv4 lookups. For ipv6, > error is -1. If we need a cleaner solution, we can have ipv4 & ipv6 > variants of "get_hop_for_offload_pkt". But that would be repetition of > some code. my concern over this patch is that there is an addition of an extra check in the non inline case and we can get rid of that with some changes in the code(lib/app). Regarding route6_pkts, the code looks cleaner than route4_pkts -Akhil ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-24 10:49 ` Akhil Goyal @ 2017-11-29 4:21 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-12-04 7:49 ` Akhil Goyal 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Anoob Joseph @ 2017-11-29 4:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev Hi Akhil, On 24-11-2017 16:19, Akhil Goyal wrote: > Hi Anoob, > > On 11/24/2017 3:28 PM, Anoob wrote: >>>> static inline void >>>> route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], >>>> uint8_t nb_pkts) >>>> { >>>> uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>>> uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>>> + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; >>>> uint16_t i, offset; >>>> + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; >>>> if (nb_pkts == 0) >>>> return; >>>> + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload >>>> packets >>>> + * will have port ID in the SA >>>> + */ >>>> + >>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>>> - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>>> - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>>> - uint32_t *, offset); >>>> - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); >>>> + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { >>>> + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is >>>> + * required to get the hop >>>> + */ >>>> + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>>> + uint32_t *, offset); >>>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); >>>> + lpm_pkts++; >>>> + } >>>> } >>>> - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >>>> nb_pkts); >>>> + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >>>> lpm_pkts); >>>> + >>>> + lpm_pkts = 0; >>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>>> - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { >>>> + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { >>>> + /* Read hop from the SA */ >>>> + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); >>>> + } else { >>>> + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ >>>> + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; >>>> + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) >>>> + pkt_hop = -1; >>>> + } >>>> + >>> I believe the following check is redundant for non inline case. I >>> believe get_hop_for_offload_pkt can also set the >>> RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS if route is success and take the (pkt_hop & >>> RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0 check outside the if else block and >>> free the packet if it is unsuccessful. >>> >>> Same comment for route6_pkts. Checking with -1 may not be a good >>> idea if we have a flag available for the same. >>> Others can comment. >> The problem is ipv4 & ipv6 LPM lookups return different error values, >> but we are using a single routine to get the hop for offload packets. >> The flag(RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) is only for ipv4 lookups. For ipv6, >> error is -1. If we need a cleaner solution, we can have ipv4 & ipv6 >> variants of "get_hop_for_offload_pkt". But that would be repetition >> of some code. > > my concern over this patch is that there is an addition of an extra > check in the non inline case and we can get rid of that with some > changes in the code(lib/app). Regarding route6_pkts, the code looks > cleaner than route4_pkts If we have ipv4 and ipv6 variants of the "get_hop_for_offload_packet" function, the code would look much cleaner. Shall I update the patch with such a change and send v4? > > > -Akhil Thanks, Anoob ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-29 4:21 ` Anoob Joseph @ 2017-12-04 7:49 ` Akhil Goyal 2017-12-06 11:08 ` Anoob 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Akhil Goyal @ 2017-12-04 7:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anoob Joseph, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev Hi Anoob, On 11/29/2017 9:51 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > Hi Akhil, > > > On 24-11-2017 16:19, Akhil Goyal wrote: >> Hi Anoob, >> >> On 11/24/2017 3:28 PM, Anoob wrote: >>>>> static inline void >>>>> route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], >>>>> uint8_t nb_pkts) >>>>> { >>>>> uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>>>> uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>>>> + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; >>>>> uint16_t i, offset; >>>>> + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; >>>>> if (nb_pkts == 0) >>>>> return; >>>>> + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload >>>>> packets >>>>> + * will have port ID in the SA >>>>> + */ >>>>> + >>>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>>>> - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>>>> - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>>>> - uint32_t *, offset); >>>>> - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); >>>>> + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { >>>>> + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is >>>>> + * required to get the hop >>>>> + */ >>>>> + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>>>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>>>> + uint32_t *, offset); >>>>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); >>>>> + lpm_pkts++; >>>>> + } >>>>> } >>>>> - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >>>>> nb_pkts); >>>>> + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >>>>> lpm_pkts); >>>>> + >>>>> + lpm_pkts = 0; >>>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>>>> - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { >>>>> + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { >>>>> + /* Read hop from the SA */ >>>>> + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); >>>>> + } else { >>>>> + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ >>>>> + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; >>>>> + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) >>>>> + pkt_hop = -1; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>> I believe the following check is redundant for non inline case. I >>>> believe get_hop_for_offload_pkt can also set the >>>> RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS if route is success and take the (pkt_hop & >>>> RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0 check outside the if else block and >>>> free the packet if it is unsuccessful. >>>> >>>> Same comment for route6_pkts. Checking with -1 may not be a good >>>> idea if we have a flag available for the same. >>>> Others can comment. >>> The problem is ipv4 & ipv6 LPM lookups return different error values, >>> but we are using a single routine to get the hop for offload packets. >>> The flag(RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) is only for ipv4 lookups. For ipv6, >>> error is -1. If we need a cleaner solution, we can have ipv4 & ipv6 >>> variants of "get_hop_for_offload_pkt". But that would be repetition >>> of some code. >> >> my concern over this patch is that there is an addition of an extra >> check in the non inline case and we can get rid of that with some >> changes in the code(lib/app). Regarding route6_pkts, the code looks >> cleaner than route4_pkts > If we have ipv4 and ipv6 variants of the "get_hop_for_offload_packet" > function, the code would look much cleaner. Shall I update the patch > with such a change and send v4? I believe we shall get rid of "RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS" from the rte_lpm_lookup_bulk(), we shall have similar error flags for v4 and v6 APIs. Either we can have RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS or -1 as check for errors. Sergio can comment on this. Duplicating code for get_hop_for_offload_packet may not be a good idea. -Akhil ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-12-04 7:49 ` Akhil Goyal @ 2017-12-06 11:08 ` Anoob 2017-12-11 10:26 ` Radu Nicolau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Anoob @ 2017-12-06 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau, Bruce Richardson Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev Hi Akhil, On 12/04/2017 01:19 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote: > Hi Anoob, > On 11/29/2017 9:51 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote: >> Hi Akhil, >> >> >> On 24-11-2017 16:19, Akhil Goyal wrote: >>> Hi Anoob, >>> >>> On 11/24/2017 3:28 PM, Anoob wrote: >>>>>> static inline void >>>>>> route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], >>>>>> uint8_t nb_pkts) >>>>>> { >>>>>> uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>>>>> uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>>>>> + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; >>>>>> uint16_t i, offset; >>>>>> + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; >>>>>> if (nb_pkts == 0) >>>>>> return; >>>>>> + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. >>>>>> Offload packets >>>>>> + * will have port ID in the SA >>>>>> + */ >>>>>> + >>>>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>>>>> - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>>>>> - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>>>>> - uint32_t *, offset); >>>>>> - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); >>>>>> + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { >>>>>> + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is >>>>>> + * required to get the hop >>>>>> + */ >>>>>> + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>>>>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>>>>> + uint32_t *, offset); >>>>>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); >>>>>> + lpm_pkts++; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> } >>>>>> - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >>>>>> nb_pkts); >>>>>> + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >>>>>> lpm_pkts); >>>>>> + >>>>>> + lpm_pkts = 0; >>>>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>>>>> - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { >>>>>> + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { >>>>>> + /* Read hop from the SA */ >>>>>> + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); >>>>>> + } else { >>>>>> + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ >>>>>> + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; >>>>>> + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) >>>>>> + pkt_hop = -1; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + >>>>> I believe the following check is redundant for non inline case. I >>>>> believe get_hop_for_offload_pkt can also set the >>>>> RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS if route is success and take the (pkt_hop & >>>>> RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0 check outside the if else block and >>>>> free the packet if it is unsuccessful. >>>>> >>>>> Same comment for route6_pkts. Checking with -1 may not be a good >>>>> idea if we have a flag available for the same. >>>>> Others can comment. >>>> The problem is ipv4 & ipv6 LPM lookups return different error >>>> values, but we are using a single routine to get the hop for >>>> offload packets. The flag(RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) is only for ipv4 >>>> lookups. For ipv6, error is -1. If we need a cleaner solution, we >>>> can have ipv4 & ipv6 variants of "get_hop_for_offload_pkt". But >>>> that would be repetition of some code. >>> >>> my concern over this patch is that there is an addition of an extra >>> check in the non inline case and we can get rid of that with some >>> changes in the code(lib/app). Regarding route6_pkts, the code looks >>> cleaner than route4_pkts >> If we have ipv4 and ipv6 variants of the "get_hop_for_offload_packet" >> function, the code would look much cleaner. Shall I update the patch >> with such a change and send v4? > > I believe we shall get rid of "RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS" from the > rte_lpm_lookup_bulk(), we shall have similar error flags for v4 and v6 > APIs. Either we can have RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS or -1 as check for > errors. This will call for an ABI change. And LPM library has multiple variants for v4 & v6 lookups. We will need to modify all such instances. I've CCed Bruce for his opinion on this matter. If maintainers can decide on how to address this properly, I can plan my next steps accordingly. > Sergio can comment on this. > > Duplicating code for get_hop_for_offload_packet may not be a good idea. > > -Akhil > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-12-06 11:08 ` Anoob @ 2017-12-11 10:26 ` Radu Nicolau 2017-12-11 10:38 ` Anoob Joseph 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Radu Nicolau @ 2017-12-11 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anoob, Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Bruce Richardson Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev Hi, On 12/6/2017 11:08 AM, Anoob wrote: > Hi Akhil, > > On 12/04/2017 01:19 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote: >> Hi Anoob, >> On 11/29/2017 9:51 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote: >>> Hi Akhil, >>> >>> >>> On 24-11-2017 16:19, Akhil Goyal wrote: >>>> Hi Anoob, >>>> >>>> On 11/24/2017 3:28 PM, Anoob wrote: >>>>>>> static inline void >>>>>>> route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], >>>>>>> uint8_t nb_pkts) >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>>>>>> uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>>>>>> + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; >>>>>>> uint16_t i, offset; >>>>>>> + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; >>>>>>> if (nb_pkts == 0) >>>>>>> return; >>>>>>> + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. >>>>>>> Offload packets >>>>>>> + * will have port ID in the SA >>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>>>>>> - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>>>>>> - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>>>>>> - uint32_t *, offset); >>>>>>> - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); >>>>>>> + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { >>>>>>> + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is >>>>>>> + * required to get the hop >>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>> + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>>>>>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>>>>>> + uint32_t *, offset); >>>>>>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); >>>>>>> + lpm_pkts++; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, >>>>>>> hop, nb_pkts); >>>>>>> + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >>>>>>> lpm_pkts); >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + lpm_pkts = 0; >>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>>>>>> - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { >>>>>>> + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { >>>>>>> + /* Read hop from the SA */ >>>>>>> + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); >>>>>>> + } else { >>>>>>> + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ >>>>>>> + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; >>>>>>> + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) >>>>>>> + pkt_hop = -1; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + >>>>>> I believe the following check is redundant for non inline case. I >>>>>> believe get_hop_for_offload_pkt can also set the >>>>>> RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS if route is success and take the (pkt_hop >>>>>> & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0 check outside the if else block >>>>>> and free the packet if it is unsuccessful. >>>>>> >>>>>> Same comment for route6_pkts. Checking with -1 may not be a good >>>>>> idea if we have a flag available for the same. >>>>>> Others can comment. >>>>> The problem is ipv4 & ipv6 LPM lookups return different error >>>>> values, but we are using a single routine to get the hop for >>>>> offload packets. The flag(RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) is only for ipv4 >>>>> lookups. For ipv6, error is -1. If we need a cleaner solution, we >>>>> can have ipv4 & ipv6 variants of "get_hop_for_offload_pkt". But >>>>> that would be repetition of some code. >>>> >>>> my concern over this patch is that there is an addition of an extra >>>> check in the non inline case and we can get rid of that with some >>>> changes in the code(lib/app). Regarding route6_pkts, the code looks >>>> cleaner than route4_pkts >>> If we have ipv4 and ipv6 variants of the >>> "get_hop_for_offload_packet" function, the code would look much >>> cleaner. Shall I update the patch with such a change and send v4? >> >> I believe we shall get rid of "RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS" from the >> rte_lpm_lookup_bulk(), we shall have similar error flags for v4 and >> v6 APIs. Either we can have RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS or -1 as check for >> errors. > This will call for an ABI change. And LPM library has multiple > variants for v4 & v6 lookups. We will need to modify all such > instances. I've CCed Bruce for his opinion on this matter. If > maintainers can decide on how to address this properly, I can plan my > next steps accordingly. Maybe this alternative approach will help: change the get_hop_for_offload_packet to return -1 for v6 and clear RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS flag for v4 errors. This will be on the error path so the extra code to check the pkt type will have no performance impact, and the route function can be cleaner and we can lose the extra if in the v4 one. >> Sergio can comment on this. >> >> Duplicating code for get_hop_for_offload_packet may not be a good idea. >> >> -Akhil >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-12-11 10:26 ` Radu Nicolau @ 2017-12-11 10:38 ` Anoob Joseph 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Anoob Joseph @ 2017-12-11 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Radu Nicolau, Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Bruce Richardson Cc: anoob.joseph, Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev Hi, On 12/11/2017 03:56 PM, Radu Nicolau wrote: > Hi, > > > On 12/6/2017 11:08 AM, Anoob wrote: >> Hi Akhil, >> >> On 12/04/2017 01:19 PM, Akhil Goyal wrote: >>> Hi Anoob, >>> On 11/29/2017 9:51 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote: >>>> Hi Akhil, >>>> >>>> >>>> On 24-11-2017 16:19, Akhil Goyal wrote: >>>>> Hi Anoob, >>>>> >>>>> On 11/24/2017 3:28 PM, Anoob wrote: >>>>>>>> static inline void >>>>>>>> route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], >>>>>>>> uint8_t nb_pkts) >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>>>>>>> uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; >>>>>>>> + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; >>>>>>>> uint16_t i, offset; >>>>>>>> + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; >>>>>>>> if (nb_pkts == 0) >>>>>>>> return; >>>>>>>> + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. >>>>>>>> Offload packets >>>>>>>> + * will have port ID in the SA >>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>>>>>>> - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>>>>>>> - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>>>>>>> - uint32_t *, offset); >>>>>>>> - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); >>>>>>>> + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { >>>>>>>> + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is >>>>>>>> + * required to get the hop >>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>> + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); >>>>>>>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], >>>>>>>> + uint32_t *, offset); >>>>>>>> + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = >>>>>>>> rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); >>>>>>>> + lpm_pkts++; >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, >>>>>>>> hop, nb_pkts); >>>>>>>> + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, >>>>>>>> lpm_pkts); >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>> + lpm_pkts = 0; >>>>>>>> for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { >>>>>>>> - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { >>>>>>>> + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { >>>>>>>> + /* Read hop from the SA */ >>>>>>>> + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i]); >>>>>>>> + } else { >>>>>>>> + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ >>>>>>>> + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; >>>>>>>> + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) >>>>>>>> + pkt_hop = -1; >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> + >>>>>>> I believe the following check is redundant for non inline case. >>>>>>> I believe get_hop_for_offload_pkt can also set the >>>>>>> RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS if route is success and take the (pkt_hop >>>>>>> & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0 check outside the if else block >>>>>>> and free the packet if it is unsuccessful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Same comment for route6_pkts. Checking with -1 may not be a good >>>>>>> idea if we have a flag available for the same. >>>>>>> Others can comment. >>>>>> The problem is ipv4 & ipv6 LPM lookups return different error >>>>>> values, but we are using a single routine to get the hop for >>>>>> offload packets. The flag(RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) is only for >>>>>> ipv4 lookups. For ipv6, error is -1. If we need a cleaner >>>>>> solution, we can have ipv4 & ipv6 variants of >>>>>> "get_hop_for_offload_pkt". But that would be repetition of some >>>>>> code. >>>>> >>>>> my concern over this patch is that there is an addition of an >>>>> extra check in the non inline case and we can get rid of that with >>>>> some changes in the code(lib/app). Regarding route6_pkts, the code >>>>> looks cleaner than route4_pkts >>>> If we have ipv4 and ipv6 variants of the >>>> "get_hop_for_offload_packet" function, the code would look much >>>> cleaner. Shall I update the patch with such a change and send v4? >>> >>> I believe we shall get rid of "RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS" from the >>> rte_lpm_lookup_bulk(), we shall have similar error flags for v4 and >>> v6 APIs. Either we can have RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS or -1 as check >>> for errors. >> This will call for an ABI change. And LPM library has multiple >> variants for v4 & v6 lookups. We will need to modify all such >> instances. I've CCed Bruce for his opinion on this matter. If >> maintainers can decide on how to address this properly, I can plan my >> next steps accordingly. > Maybe this alternative approach will help: change the > get_hop_for_offload_packet to return -1 for v6 and clear > RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS flag for v4 errors. This will be on the error > path so the extra code to check the pkt type will have no performance > impact, and the route function can be cleaner and we can lose the > extra if in the v4 one. That should be fine I guess. So the get_hop_for_offload_packet will have one more argument to specify whether it is ipv4 or ipv6, right? I'll revise the patch with this suggestion. >>> Sergio can comment on this. >>> >>> Duplicating code for get_hop_for_offload_packet may not be a good idea. >>> >>> -Akhil >>> >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v4] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-11-15 9:41 ` [PATCH v3] " Anoob Joseph 2017-11-24 9:28 ` Akhil Goyal @ 2017-12-11 15:35 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-12-12 6:54 ` Anoob Joseph ` (2 more replies) 1 sibling, 3 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Anoob Joseph @ 2017-12-11 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: Anoob Joseph, Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being sent out. This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> --- v4 * Made get_hop_for_offload_pkt() be aware of the packet type (ipv4/ipv6) and return success/error values accordingly v3 * Bug fix (fixed a wrong if condition) * Minor changes in documentation v2: * Updated documentation with the change in behavior for outbound inline offloaded packets. doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst | 10 ++- examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst index d6cfdbf..ae18acd 100644 --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ In case of complete protocol offload, the processing of headers(ESP and outer IP header) is done by the hardware and the application does not need to add/remove them during outbound/inbound processing. +For inline offloaded outbound traffic, the application will not do the LPM +lookup for routing, as the port on which the packet has to be forwarded will be +part of the SA. Security parameters will be configured on that port only, and +sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being +sent out. + The Path for IPsec Inbound traffic is: * Read packets from the port. @@ -543,7 +549,9 @@ where each options means: ``<port_id>`` * Port/device ID of the ethernet/crypto accelerator for which the SA is - configured. This option is used when *type* is NOT *no-offload* + configured. For *inline-crypto-offload* and *inline-protocol-offload*, this + port will be used for routing. The routing table will not be referred in + this case. * Optional: No, if *type* is not *no-offload* diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c index c98454a..c75dd0d 100644 --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c @@ -585,31 +585,81 @@ process_pkts_outbound_nosp(struct ipsec_ctx *ipsec_ctx, traffic->ip6.num = nb_pkts_out; } +static inline int32_t +get_hop_for_offload_pkt(struct rte_mbuf *pkt, int is_ipv6) +{ + struct ipsec_mbuf_metadata *priv; + struct ipsec_sa *sa; + + priv = get_priv(pkt); + + sa = priv->sa; + if (unlikely(sa == NULL)) { + RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC, "SA not saved in private data\n"); + goto fail; + } + + if (is_ipv6) + return sa->portid; + + /* else */ + return (sa->portid | RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS); + +fail: + if (is_ipv6) + return -1; + + /* else */ + return 0; +} + static inline void route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) { uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; uint16_t i, offset; + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; if (nb_pkts == 0) return; + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets + * will have port ID in the SA + */ + for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], - uint32_t *, offset); - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is + * required to get the hop + */ + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], + uint32_t *, offset); + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); + lpm_pkts++; + } } - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, nb_pkts); + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, lpm_pkts); + + lpm_pkts = 0; for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { + /* Read hop from the SA */ + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i], 0); + } else { + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; + } + + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); continue; } - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); } } @@ -619,26 +669,49 @@ route6_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) int32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; uint8_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2][16]; uint8_t *ip6_dst; + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; uint16_t i, offset; + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; if (nb_pkts == 0) return; + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets + * will have port ID in the SA + */ + for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); - ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, offset); - memcpy(&dst_ip[i][0], ip6_dst, 16); + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is + * required to get the hop + */ + offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); + ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, + offset); + memcpy(&dst_ip[lpm_pkts][0], ip6_dst, 16); + lpm_pkts++; + } } - rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, - hop, nb_pkts); + rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, + lpm_pkts); + + lpm_pkts = 0; for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - if (hop[i] == -1) { + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { + /* Read hop from the SA */ + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i], 1); + } else { + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; + } + + if (pkt_hop == -1) { rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); continue; } - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); } } -- 2.7.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-12-11 15:35 ` [PATCH v4] " Anoob Joseph @ 2017-12-12 6:54 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-12-12 7:34 ` Akhil Goyal 2017-12-12 8:32 ` [PATCH v5] " Anoob Joseph 2 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Anoob Joseph @ 2017-12-12 6:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: anoob.joseph, Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev Hi Akhil, Radu, I've updated the patch with the suggestions. But I think it will be better if we have two separate get_hop_for_offload_pkt() functions(for ipv4 & ipv6), since the return type etc is different. It might be cleaner that way. Thanks, Anoob On 12/11/2017 09:05 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the > port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that > port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in > unencrypted packets being sent out. > > This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM > lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. > > Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") > > Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> > --- > v4 > * Made get_hop_for_offload_pkt() be aware of the packet type (ipv4/ipv6) and > return success/error values accordingly > > v3 > * Bug fix (fixed a wrong if condition) > * Minor changes in documentation > > v2: > * Updated documentation with the change in behavior for outbound inline > offloaded packets. > > doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst | 10 ++- > examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > index d6cfdbf..ae18acd 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ In case of complete protocol offload, the processing of headers(ESP and outer > IP header) is done by the hardware and the application does not need to > add/remove them during outbound/inbound processing. > > +For inline offloaded outbound traffic, the application will not do the LPM > +lookup for routing, as the port on which the packet has to be forwarded will be > +part of the SA. Security parameters will be configured on that port only, and > +sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being > +sent out. > + > The Path for IPsec Inbound traffic is: > > * Read packets from the port. > @@ -543,7 +549,9 @@ where each options means: > ``<port_id>`` > > * Port/device ID of the ethernet/crypto accelerator for which the SA is > - configured. This option is used when *type* is NOT *no-offload* > + configured. For *inline-crypto-offload* and *inline-protocol-offload*, this > + port will be used for routing. The routing table will not be referred in > + this case. > > * Optional: No, if *type* is not *no-offload* > > diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c > index c98454a..c75dd0d 100644 > --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c > +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c > @@ -585,31 +585,81 @@ process_pkts_outbound_nosp(struct ipsec_ctx *ipsec_ctx, > traffic->ip6.num = nb_pkts_out; > } > > +static inline int32_t > +get_hop_for_offload_pkt(struct rte_mbuf *pkt, int is_ipv6) > +{ > + struct ipsec_mbuf_metadata *priv; > + struct ipsec_sa *sa; > + > + priv = get_priv(pkt); > + > + sa = priv->sa; > + if (unlikely(sa == NULL)) { > + RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC, "SA not saved in private data\n"); > + goto fail; > + } > + > + if (is_ipv6) > + return sa->portid; > + > + /* else */ > + return (sa->portid | RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS); > + > +fail: > + if (is_ipv6) > + return -1; > + > + /* else */ > + return 0; > +} > + > static inline void > route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) > { > uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; > uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; > + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; > uint16_t i, offset; > + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; > > if (nb_pkts == 0) > return; > > + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets > + * will have port ID in the SA > + */ > + > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); > - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], > - uint32_t *, offset); > - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); > + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { > + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is > + * required to get the hop > + */ > + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); > + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], > + uint32_t *, offset); > + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); > + lpm_pkts++; > + } > } > > - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, nb_pkts); > + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, lpm_pkts); > + > + lpm_pkts = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { > + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { > + /* Read hop from the SA */ > + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i], 0); > + } else { > + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ > + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; > + } > + > + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { > rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); > continue; > } > - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); > + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); > } > } > > @@ -619,26 +669,49 @@ route6_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) > int32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; > uint8_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2][16]; > uint8_t *ip6_dst; > + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; > uint16_t i, offset; > + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; > > if (nb_pkts == 0) > return; > > + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets > + * will have port ID in the SA > + */ > + > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); > - ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, offset); > - memcpy(&dst_ip[i][0], ip6_dst, 16); > + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { > + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is > + * required to get the hop > + */ > + offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); > + ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, > + offset); > + memcpy(&dst_ip[lpm_pkts][0], ip6_dst, 16); > + lpm_pkts++; > + } > } > > - rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, > - hop, nb_pkts); > + rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, > + lpm_pkts); > + > + lpm_pkts = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - if (hop[i] == -1) { > + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { > + /* Read hop from the SA */ > + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i], 1); > + } else { > + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ > + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; > + } > + > + if (pkt_hop == -1) { > rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); > continue; > } > - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); > + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); > } > } > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v4] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-12-11 15:35 ` [PATCH v4] " Anoob Joseph 2017-12-12 6:54 ` Anoob Joseph @ 2017-12-12 7:34 ` Akhil Goyal 2017-12-12 8:32 ` [PATCH v5] " Anoob Joseph 2 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Akhil Goyal @ 2017-12-12 7:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anoob Joseph, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev Hi Anoob, One minor comment inline. Please correct it. Apart from that, Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com> Thanks. On 12/11/2017 9:05 PM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the > port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that > port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in > unencrypted packets being sent out. > > This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM > lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. > > Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") > > Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> > --- > v4 > * Made get_hop_for_offload_pkt() be aware of the packet type (ipv4/ipv6) and > return success/error values accordingly > > v3 > * Bug fix (fixed a wrong if condition) > * Minor changes in documentation > > v2: > * Updated documentation with the change in behavior for outbound inline > offloaded packets. > > doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst | 10 ++- > examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > index d6cfdbf..ae18acd 100644 > --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst > @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ In case of complete protocol offload, the processing of headers(ESP and outer > IP header) is done by the hardware and the application does not need to > add/remove them during outbound/inbound processing. > > +For inline offloaded outbound traffic, the application will not do the LPM > +lookup for routing, as the port on which the packet has to be forwarded will be > +part of the SA. Security parameters will be configured on that port only, and > +sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being > +sent out. > + > The Path for IPsec Inbound traffic is: > > * Read packets from the port. > @@ -543,7 +549,9 @@ where each options means: > ``<port_id>`` > > * Port/device ID of the ethernet/crypto accelerator for which the SA is > - configured. This option is used when *type* is NOT *no-offload* > + configured. For *inline-crypto-offload* and *inline-protocol-offload*, this > + port will be used for routing. The routing table will not be referred in > + this case. > > * Optional: No, if *type* is not *no-offload* > > diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c > index c98454a..c75dd0d 100644 > --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c > +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c > @@ -585,31 +585,81 @@ process_pkts_outbound_nosp(struct ipsec_ctx *ipsec_ctx, > traffic->ip6.num = nb_pkts_out; > } > > +static inline int32_t > +get_hop_for_offload_pkt(struct rte_mbuf *pkt, int is_ipv6) > +{ > + struct ipsec_mbuf_metadata *priv; > + struct ipsec_sa *sa; > + > + priv = get_priv(pkt); > + > + sa = priv->sa; > + if (unlikely(sa == NULL)) { > + RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC, "SA not saved in private data\n"); > + goto fail; > + } > + > + if (is_ipv6) > + return sa->portid; > + > + /* else */ > + return (sa->portid | RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS); > + > +fail: > + if (is_ipv6) > + return -1; > + > + /* else */ > + return 0; > +} > + > static inline void > route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) > { > uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; > uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; > + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; > uint16_t i, offset; > + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; > > if (nb_pkts == 0) > return; > > + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets > + * will have port ID in the SA the comment should be "Need to do an LPM lookup for non-inline packets. Inline packets will have port ID in the SA". > + */ > + > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); > - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], > - uint32_t *, offset); > - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); > + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { > + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is > + * required to get the hop > + */ > + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); > + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], > + uint32_t *, offset); > + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); > + lpm_pkts++; > + } > } > > - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, nb_pkts); > + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, lpm_pkts); > + > + lpm_pkts = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { > + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { > + /* Read hop from the SA */ > + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i], 0); > + } else { > + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ > + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; > + } > + > + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { > rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); > continue; > } > - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); > + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); > } > } > > @@ -619,26 +669,49 @@ route6_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) > int32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; > uint8_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2][16]; > uint8_t *ip6_dst; > + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; > uint16_t i, offset; > + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; > > if (nb_pkts == 0) > return; > > + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-offload packets. Offload packets > + * will have port ID in the SA Same here. Comments need to be updated. > + */ > + > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); > - ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, offset); > - memcpy(&dst_ip[i][0], ip6_dst, 16); > + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { > + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is > + * required to get the hop > + */ > + offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); > + ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, > + offset); > + memcpy(&dst_ip[lpm_pkts][0], ip6_dst, 16); > + lpm_pkts++; > + } > } > > - rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, > - hop, nb_pkts); > + rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, > + lpm_pkts); > + > + lpm_pkts = 0; > > for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { > - if (hop[i] == -1) { > + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { > + /* Read hop from the SA */ > + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i], 1); > + } else { > + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ > + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; > + } > + > + if (pkt_hop == -1) { > rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); > continue; > } > - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); > + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); > } > } > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v5] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-12-11 15:35 ` [PATCH v4] " Anoob Joseph 2017-12-12 6:54 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-12-12 7:34 ` Akhil Goyal @ 2017-12-12 8:32 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-12-12 11:27 ` Radu Nicolau 2 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Anoob Joseph @ 2017-12-12 8:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy, Radu Nicolau Cc: Anoob Joseph, Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being sent out. This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com> --- v5 * Updated comments as suggested by Akhil v4 * Made get_hop_for_offload_pkt() be aware of the packet type (ipv4/ipv6) and return success/error values accordingly v3 * Bug fix (fixed a wrong if condition) * Minor changes in documentation v2: * Updated documentation with the change in behavior for outbound inline offloaded packets. doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst | 10 ++- examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst index d6cfdbf..ae18acd 100644 --- a/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst +++ b/doc/guides/sample_app_ug/ipsec_secgw.rst @@ -61,6 +61,12 @@ In case of complete protocol offload, the processing of headers(ESP and outer IP header) is done by the hardware and the application does not need to add/remove them during outbound/inbound processing. +For inline offloaded outbound traffic, the application will not do the LPM +lookup for routing, as the port on which the packet has to be forwarded will be +part of the SA. Security parameters will be configured on that port only, and +sending the packet on other ports could result in unencrypted packets being +sent out. + The Path for IPsec Inbound traffic is: * Read packets from the port. @@ -543,7 +549,9 @@ where each options means: ``<port_id>`` * Port/device ID of the ethernet/crypto accelerator for which the SA is - configured. This option is used when *type* is NOT *no-offload* + configured. For *inline-crypto-offload* and *inline-protocol-offload*, this + port will be used for routing. The routing table will not be referred in + this case. * Optional: No, if *type* is not *no-offload* diff --git a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c index c98454a..2a406ab 100644 --- a/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c +++ b/examples/ipsec-secgw/ipsec-secgw.c @@ -585,31 +585,81 @@ process_pkts_outbound_nosp(struct ipsec_ctx *ipsec_ctx, traffic->ip6.num = nb_pkts_out; } +static inline int32_t +get_hop_for_offload_pkt(struct rte_mbuf *pkt, int is_ipv6) +{ + struct ipsec_mbuf_metadata *priv; + struct ipsec_sa *sa; + + priv = get_priv(pkt); + + sa = priv->sa; + if (unlikely(sa == NULL)) { + RTE_LOG(ERR, IPSEC, "SA not saved in private data\n"); + goto fail; + } + + if (is_ipv6) + return sa->portid; + + /* else */ + return (sa->portid | RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS); + +fail: + if (is_ipv6) + return -1; + + /* else */ + return 0; +} + static inline void route4_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) { uint32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; uint32_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; uint16_t i, offset; + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; if (nb_pkts == 0) return; + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-inline packets. Inline packets will + * have port ID in the SA + */ + for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); - dst_ip[i] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], - uint32_t *, offset); - dst_ip[i] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[i]); + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is + * required to get the hop + */ + offset = offsetof(struct ip, ip_dst); + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = *rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], + uint32_t *, offset); + dst_ip[lpm_pkts] = rte_be_to_cpu_32(dst_ip[lpm_pkts]); + lpm_pkts++; + } } - rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, nb_pkts); + rte_lpm_lookup_bulk((struct rte_lpm *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, lpm_pkts); + + lpm_pkts = 0; for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - if ((hop[i] & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { + /* Read hop from the SA */ + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i], 0); + } else { + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; + } + + if ((pkt_hop & RTE_LPM_LOOKUP_SUCCESS) == 0) { rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); continue; } - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); } } @@ -619,26 +669,49 @@ route6_pkts(struct rt_ctx *rt_ctx, struct rte_mbuf *pkts[], uint8_t nb_pkts) int32_t hop[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2]; uint8_t dst_ip[MAX_PKT_BURST * 2][16]; uint8_t *ip6_dst; + int32_t pkt_hop = 0; uint16_t i, offset; + uint16_t lpm_pkts = 0; if (nb_pkts == 0) return; + /* Need to do an LPM lookup for non-inline packets. Inline packets will + * have port ID in the SA + */ + for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); - ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, offset); - memcpy(&dst_ip[i][0], ip6_dst, 16); + if (!(pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD)) { + /* Security offload not enabled. So an LPM lookup is + * required to get the hop + */ + offset = offsetof(struct ip6_hdr, ip6_dst); + ip6_dst = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(pkts[i], uint8_t *, + offset); + memcpy(&dst_ip[lpm_pkts][0], ip6_dst, 16); + lpm_pkts++; + } } - rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, - hop, nb_pkts); + rte_lpm6_lookup_bulk_func((struct rte_lpm6 *)rt_ctx, dst_ip, hop, + lpm_pkts); + + lpm_pkts = 0; for (i = 0; i < nb_pkts; i++) { - if (hop[i] == -1) { + if (pkts[i]->ol_flags & PKT_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD) { + /* Read hop from the SA */ + pkt_hop = get_hop_for_offload_pkt(pkts[i], 1); + } else { + /* Need to use hop returned by lookup */ + pkt_hop = hop[lpm_pkts++]; + } + + if (pkt_hop == -1) { rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]); continue; } - send_single_packet(pkts[i], hop[i] & 0xff); + send_single_packet(pkts[i], pkt_hop & 0xff); } } -- 2.7.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-12-12 8:32 ` [PATCH v5] " Anoob Joseph @ 2017-12-12 11:27 ` Radu Nicolau 2017-12-14 9:01 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Radu Nicolau @ 2017-12-12 11:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Anoob Joseph, Akhil Goyal, Declan Doherty, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev On 12/12/2017 8:32 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on the > port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on that > port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in > unencrypted packets being sent out. > > This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM > lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. > > Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") > > Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com> Acked-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v5] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port 2017-12-12 11:27 ` Radu Nicolau @ 2017-12-14 9:01 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: De Lara Guarch, Pablo @ 2017-12-14 9:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nicolau, Radu, Anoob Joseph, Akhil Goyal, Doherty, Declan, Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio Cc: Narayana Prasad, Jerin Jacob, dev > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Radu Nicolau > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 11:27 AM > To: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com>; Akhil Goyal > <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>; Doherty, Declan <declan.doherty@intel.com>; > Gonzalez Monroy, Sergio <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> > Cc: Narayana Prasad <narayanaprasad.athreya@caviumnetworks.com>; > Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of > incorrect port > > > > On 12/12/2017 8:32 AM, Anoob Joseph wrote: > > When security offload is enabled, the packet should be forwarded on > > the port configured in the SA. Security session will be configured on > > that port only, and sending the packet on other ports could result in > > unencrypted packets being sent out. > > > > This would have performance improvements too, as the per packet LPM > > lookup would be avoided for IPsec packets, in inline mode. > > > > Fixes: ec17993a145a ("examples/ipsec-secgw: support security offload") > > > > Signed-off-by: Anoob Joseph <anoob.joseph@caviumnetworks.com> > > Acked-by: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com> > Acked-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com> Applied to dpdk-next-crypto. Thanks, Pablo ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-12-14 9:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 21+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2017-11-13 16:13 [PATCH] examples/ipsec-secgw: fix usage of incorrect port Anoob Joseph 2017-11-13 17:23 ` Radu Nicolau 2017-11-13 19:24 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-11-14 12:01 ` Nicolau, Radu 2017-11-14 15:37 ` [PATCH v2] " Anoob Joseph 2017-11-14 16:16 ` Radu Nicolau 2017-11-15 9:41 ` [PATCH v3] " Anoob Joseph 2017-11-24 9:28 ` Akhil Goyal 2017-11-24 9:58 ` Anoob 2017-11-24 10:49 ` Akhil Goyal 2017-11-29 4:21 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-12-04 7:49 ` Akhil Goyal 2017-12-06 11:08 ` Anoob 2017-12-11 10:26 ` Radu Nicolau 2017-12-11 10:38 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-12-11 15:35 ` [PATCH v4] " Anoob Joseph 2017-12-12 6:54 ` Anoob Joseph 2017-12-12 7:34 ` Akhil Goyal 2017-12-12 8:32 ` [PATCH v5] " Anoob Joseph 2017-12-12 11:27 ` Radu Nicolau 2017-12-14 9:01 ` De Lara Guarch, Pablo
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.