RE: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer protocol for filter-mirror/redirector

["Zhang, Chen" <chen.zhang@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 3:26 PM
> To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>
> Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>; qemu-dev <qemu-
> devel@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer protocol for filter-
> mirror/redirector
> 
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 3:20 PM Zhang, Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 2:42 PM
> > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>; qemu-dev <qemu-
> > > devel@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer protocol
> > > for filter- mirror/redirector
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 10:50 AM Zhang, Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:42 AM
> > > > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > > Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>; qemu-dev <qemu-
> > > > > devel@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer
> > > > > protocol for filter- mirror/redirector
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 4:43 PM Zhang, Chen
> > > > > <chen.zhang@intel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 4:30 PM
> > > > > > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > > > > Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>; qemu-dev
> <qemu-
> > > > > > > devel@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer
> > > > > > > protocol for filter- mirror/redirector
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 1:29 PM Zhang, Chen
> > > > > > > <chen.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 12:03 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > > > > > > Cc: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>; qemu-dev
> > > <qemu-
> > > > > > > > > devel@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize
> > > > > > > > > transfer protocol for filter- mirror/redirector
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:27 AM Zhang, Chen
> > > > > > > > > <chen.zhang@intel.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 11:17 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zhang@intel.com>; Markus
> > > > > > > > > > > Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Cc: qemu-dev <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian
> > > > > > > > > > > <lizhijian@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize
> > > > > > > > > > > transfer protocol for filter- mirror/redirector
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 在 2021/11/4 下午1:37, Zhang, Chen 写道:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> I wonder if we need to introduce new
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> parameter, e.g force_vnet_hdr here, then we
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> can always send vnet_hdr
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> it
> > > > > > > > > is enabled.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Otherwise the "vnet_hdr_support" seems
> meaningless.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Yes, Current "vnet_hdr_support"  default
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> enabled, and vnet_hdr_len
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> already forced from attached nf->netdev.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Maybe we can introduce a new parameter
> > > > > > > "force_no_vnet_hdr"
> > > > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> make the vnet_hdr_len always keep 0.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If you think OK, I will update it in next version.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Let me explain, if I was not wrong:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> "vnet_hdr_support" means whether or not to send
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> vnet header
> > > > > > > > > length.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> If vnet_hdr_support=false, we won't send the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> vnet
> > > header.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> This looks the same as you "force_no_vent_hdr"
> above.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Yes, It was.  But this series changed it.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Current "vnet_hdr_support" can't decide whether
> > > > > > > > > > > >> send vnet header length, we always send it even 0.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> It will avoid sender/receiver transfer protocol parse
> issues:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> When sender data with the vnet header length, but
> > > > > > > > > > > >> receiver can't enable the "vnet_hdr_support".
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Filters will auto setup vnet_hdr_len as local
> > > > > > > > > > > >> nf->netdev and found the issue when get different
> > > > > > > > > > > >> vnet_hdr_len from other
> > > > > > > filters.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> And my "force_vnet_hdr" seems duplicated with
> > > > > > > > > > > vnet_hdr_support=true.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> So it looks to me we can leave the mirror code
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> as is and just change the compare? (depends on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> the mgmt to set a correct
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> vnet_hdr_support)
> > > > > > > > > > > >> OK, I will keep the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> filter-mirror/filter-redirector/filter-rewriter
> > > > > > > > > > > >> same as this version.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> For the colo-compare module, It will get primary
> > > > > > > > > > > >> node's filter data's vnet_hdr_len as the local
> > > > > > > > > > > >> value, And compare with secondary node's, because
> > > > > > > > > > > >> it is not attached any
> > > > > nf->netdev.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> So, it looks compare module's "vnet_hdr_support"
> > > > > > > > > > > >> been auto configuration from the filter transport
> protocol.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> If the "force_vnet_hdr" means hard code a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> compare's local vnet_hdr_len rather than come from
> input filter's data?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Chen
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jason/Markus,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Rethink about it, How about keep the original
> > > > > "vnet_hdr_support"
> > > > > > > > > > > > function, And add a new optional parameter
> > > "auto_vnet_hdr"
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > filters/compare?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's a way but rethink of the whole thing. I wonder
> > > > > > > > > > > what if we just enable "vnet_hdr_support" by default
> > > > > > > > > > > for filter and
> > > > > > > > > > > colo-
> > > > > > > compare?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's works by default for user use -device
> > > > > > > > > > virtio-net-pci and
> > > e1000...
> > > > > > > > > > But it can't resolve this series motivation, how to
> > > > > > > > > > fix/check user
> > > > > > > > > configuration issue:
> > > > > > > > > > For example user enable " vnet_hdr_support "
> > > > > > > > > > filter-mirror and disable " vnet_hdr_support"
> > > > > > > > > > filter-redirector And connect both filter modules by
> > > > > > > > > chardev socket.
> > > > > > > > > > In this case guest will get wrong network workload and
> > > > > > > > > > filters didn’t perceive any abnormalities, but in
> > > > > > > > > > fact, the whole system is no longer
> > > > > > > > > working.
> > > > > > > > > > This series will report error and try to correct it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The problem is how "auto_vnet_hdr" help in this case.
> > > > > > > > > It's a new parameter which may lead to more wrong
> configuration?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, the "auto_vnet_hdr" will fix most the wrong
> > > > > > > > configuration issues as
> > > > > > > "vnet_hdr_support" correct setting.
> > > > > > > > When we enable the "auto_vnet_hdr", the original
> > > > > "vnet_hdr_support"
> > > > > > > will no effect.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So it looks to me it still depends on the management to set
> > > > > "auto_vnet_hdr"
> > > > > > > to be true? (or make it enabled by default)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, I plan to make "auto_vnet_hdr" enabled by default in next
> version.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we can do that, isn't it much more simpler to make
> > > > > > > vnet_hdr_support by default?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, For compatibility filters and COLO still work with the
> > > > > > original
> > > > > "vnet_hdr_support".
> > > > > > For new users, they can enable the new "auto_vnet_hdr" to
> > > > > > avoid some
> > > > > issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Question still, so we have
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) enable vnet_hdr_support by default
> > > > > 2) add auto_vnet_hdr and enable it by default
> > > > >
> > > > > Using 1) seems much more simpler and can solve this issue. If we
> > > > > depends on the default behaviour, it should be almost the same.
> > > > > If we want to teach the mgmt, both should work. Any other
> > > > > advantages of
> > > 2)?
> > > >
> > > > Using 1) we can't ensure user configure parts of module by itself.
> > > (vnet_hdr_support = off).
> > > > In this case, filter data already wrong and the filters can't
> > > > report any
> > > transfer error here.
> > >
> > > So I think the point is we can't ensure the user configure parts of
> > > module in any case even if auto_vnet_hdr is introduced. E.g user can
> > > choose to disable it manually. That's why I think it should not
> > > differ too much from making vnet_hdr_support enabled by default.
> >
> > Yes, you are right. The "auto_vnet_hdr" just can fix part of user configure
> issue.
> > And I think this series make the filters better, it make user know
> > filters have some issues when they have wrong manual
> configuration(current code not).
> 
> I think if you stick to the change, I wonder if something like
> "vnet_hdr_support=auto" would be better? (not sure if it's too late to
> change)

It's OK for me. I will update the V6.
By the way, have any update about the queued filter passthrough series?
Need I do something?

Thanks
Chen

> 
> Thanks
> 
> >
> > Thanks
> > Chen
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Using 2) filters will find/report this issue and try to fix it
> > > > from local
> > > vnet_hdr_len.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Chen
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Chen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think I may miss something.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > Chen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Chen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > > Chen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Chen
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >