[dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] net/tap: fix isolation mode toggling
Ophir Munk
ophirmu at mellanox.com
Mon May 7 10:36:40 CEST 2018
Running testpmd command "flow isolae <port> 0" (i.e. disabling flow
isolation) followed by command "flow isolate <port> 1" (i.e. enabling
flow isolation) may result in a TAP error:
PMD: Kernel refused TC filter rule creation (17): File exists
Root cause analysis: when disabling flow isolation we keep the local
rule to redirect packets on TX (TAP_REMOTE_TX index) while we add it
again when enabling flow isolation. As a result this rule is added
two times in a raw which results in "File exists" error.
The fix is to identify the "File exists" error and silently ignore it.
Another issue occurs when enabling isolation mode several times in a
raw in which case the same tc rules are added consecutively and
rte_flow structs are added to a linked list before removing the
previous rte_flow structs.
The fix is to act upon isolation mode command only when there is a
change from "0" to "1" (or vice versa).
Fixes: f503d2694825 ("net/tap: support flow API isolated mode")
Cc: stable at dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Ophir Munk <ophirmu at mellanox.com>
---
drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c b/drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c
index aab9eef..91f15f6 100644
--- a/drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c
+++ b/drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c
@@ -1568,10 +1568,10 @@ tap_flow_isolate(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
{
struct pmd_internals *pmd = dev->data->dev_private;
- if (set)
- pmd->flow_isolate = 1;
- else
- pmd->flow_isolate = 0;
+ /* if already in the right isolation mode - nothing to do */
+ if ((!!set ^ pmd->flow_isolate) == 0)
+ return 0;
+ pmd->flow_isolate = !!set;
/*
* If netdevice is there, setup appropriate flow rules immediately.
* Otherwise it will be set when bringing up the netdevice (tun_alloc).
@@ -1579,21 +1579,30 @@ tap_flow_isolate(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
if (!pmd->rxq[0].fd)
return 0;
if (set) {
- struct rte_flow *flow;
+ struct rte_flow *remote_flow;
- while (1) {
- flow = LIST_FIRST(&pmd->implicit_flows);
- if (!flow)
+ while (!LIST_EMPTY(&pmd->implicit_flows)) {
+ remote_flow = LIST_FIRST(&pmd->implicit_flows);
+ if (!remote_flow)
break;
/*
* Remove all implicit rules on the remote.
* Keep the local rule to redirect packets on TX.
* Keep also the last implicit local rule: ISOLATE.
*/
- if (flow->msg.t.tcm_ifindex == pmd->if_index)
- break;
- if (tap_flow_destroy_pmd(pmd, flow, NULL) < 0)
- goto error;
+ if (remote_flow->msg.t.tcm_ifindex != pmd->if_index) {
+ /*
+ * remove TC from kernel and
+ * remote_flow from list
+ */
+ if (tap_flow_destroy_pmd(pmd, remote_flow,
+ NULL) < 0)
+ goto error;
+ } else {
+ /* remove remote_flow from list */
+ LIST_REMOVE(remote_flow, next);
+ rte_free(remote_flow);
+ }
}
/* Switch the TC rule according to pmd->flow_isolate */
if (tap_flow_implicit_create(pmd, TAP_ISOLATE) == -1)
@@ -1739,8 +1748,8 @@ int tap_flow_implicit_create(struct pmd_internals *pmd,
}
err = tap_nl_recv_ack(pmd->nlsk_fd);
if (err < 0) {
- /* Silently ignore re-entering remote promiscuous rule */
- if (errno == EEXIST && idx == TAP_REMOTE_PROMISC)
+ /* Silently ignore re-entering existing rule */
+ if (errno == EEXIST)
goto success;
TAP_LOG(ERR,
"Kernel refused TC filter rule creation (%d): %s",
--
2.7.4
More information about the dev
mailing list