From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dekel Peled <dekelp@mellanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add actions to modify TCP
	header fields
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 10:49:09 +0000
Message-ID: <VI1PR05MB4224753382F523CD7C238A7EB6570@VI1PR05MB4224.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <1553177917-43297-1-git-send-email-dekelp@mellanox.com>
 <1554218001-62012-2-git-send-email-dekelp@mellanox.com>
 <20190403091432.GP4889@6wind.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "wenzhuo.lu@intel.com" <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>, "jingjing.wu@intel.com"
 <jingjing.wu@intel.com>, "bernard.iremonger@intel.com"
 <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>, Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>, Shahaf
 Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Ori Kam
 <orika@mellanox.com>
To: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-eopbgr150079.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.15.79])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BDA1B118
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  3 Apr 2019 12:49:10 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20190403091432.GP4889@6wind.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Thanks, PSB.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarguil@6wind.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 12:15 PM
> To: Dekel Peled <dekelp@mellanox.com>
> Cc: wenzhuo.lu@intel.com; jingjing.wu@intel.com;
> bernard.iremonger@intel.com; Yongseok Koh <yskoh@mellanox.com>;
> Shahaf Shuler <shahafs@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam
> <orika@mellanox.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add actions to modify TCP header fiel=
ds
>=20
> Hi Dekel,
>=20
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:13:19PM +0300, Dekel Peled wrote:
> > Add actions:
> > - INC_TCP_SEQ - Increase sequence number in the outermost TCP header.
> > - DEC_TCP_SEQ - Decrease sequence number in the outermost TCP
> header.
> > - INC_TCP_ACK - Increase acknowledgment number in the outermost TCP
> > 		header.
> > - DEC_TCP_ACK - Decrease acknowledgment number in the outermost TCP
> > 		header.
> >
> > Original work by Xiaoyu Min.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dekelp@mellanox.com>
> <snip>
> > +Action: ``INC_TCP_SEQ``
> > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > +
> > +Increase sequence number in the outermost TCP header.
> > +
> > +If this action is used without a valid RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_TCP flow
> > +pattern item, behavior is unspecified, depending on PMD
> implementation.
>=20
> I still don't agree with the wording as it implies one must combine this =
action
> with the TCP pattern item or else, while one should simply ensure the
> presence of TCP traffic somehow. This may be done by a prior filtering ru=
le.
>=20
> So here's a generic suggestion which could be used with pretty much all
> modifying actions (other actions have the same problem and will have to b=
e
> fixed as well eventually):
>=20
>  Using this action on non-matching traffic results in undefined behavior.
>=20
> This comment applies to all instances in this patch.

I accept your suggestion, indeed the existing actions have the problematic =
condition.
However I would like to currently leave this patch as-is for consistency.
I will send a fix patch for next release, applying the updated text to all =
modify-header actions.

>=20
> <snip>
> > +/**
> > + * @warning
> > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior notice
> > + *
> > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_INC_TCP_SEQ
> > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_DEC_TCP_SEQ
> > + *
> > + * Increase/Decrease outermost TCP sequence number  */ struct
> > +rte_flow_action_modify_tcp_seq {
> > +	rte_be32_t value; /**< Value to increase/decrease by. */ };
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * @warning
> > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior notice
> > + *
> > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_INC_TCP_ACK
> > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_DEC_TCP_ACK
> > + *
> > + * Increase/Decrease outermost TCP acknowledgment number.
> > + */
> > +struct rte_flow_action_modify_tcp_ack {
> > +	rte_be32_t value; /**< Value to increase/decrease by. */ };
>=20
> Thanks for adding experimental tags and comments, however you didn't
> reply anything about using a single action, or at least a single structur=
e for
> add/sub/set? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

It's either 2 actions with 1 parameters, or 1 action with 2 parameters.
The current implementation is more straight-forward in my opinion.

>=20
> --
> Adrien Mazarguil
> 6WIND