[dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item

[Ori Kam]

Thanks,
Ori

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree at marvell.com>
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2020 8:31 AM
> 
> Thanks,
> Tejasree
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:00 PM
> > To: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree at marvell.com>; Asaf Penso
> > <asafp at nvidia.com>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> > Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Radu Nicolau
> > <radu.nicolau at intel.com>; Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com>;
> > NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit
> > <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
> > <arybchenko at solarflare.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> > <jerinj at marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> > <pathreya at marvell.com>; Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>;
> > dev at dpdk.org
> > Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item
> >
> > External Email
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hi
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree at marvell.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 5:18 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item
> > >
> > > Hi Ori,
> > >
> > > Please see inline.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tejasree
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Tejasree Kondoj
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 2:37 PM
> > > > To: Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>; Asaf Penso <asafp at nvidia.com>;
> > > > Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> > > > Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Radu Nicolau
> > > > <radu.nicolau at intel.com>; Declan Doherty <declan.doherty at intel.com>;
> > > > NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit
> > > > <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
> > > > <arybchenko at solarflare.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> > > > <jerinj at marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> > > > <pathreya at marvell.com>; Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>;
> > > > dev at dpdk.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item
> > > >
> > > > Please see inline.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Tejasree
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 1:22 PM
> > > > > To: Asaf Penso <asafp at nvidia.com>; Tejasree Kondoj
> > > > > <ktejasree at marvell.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> > > > > <stephen at networkplumber.org>
> > > > > Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Radu Nicolau
> > > > > <radu.nicolau at intel.com>; Declan Doherty
> > > > > <declan.doherty at intel.com>; NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon
> > > > > <thomas at monjalon.net>; Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>;
> > > > > Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko at solarflare.com>; Jerin Jacob
> > > > > Kollanukkaran <jerinj at marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> > > > > <pathreya at marvell.com>; Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>;
> > > > > dev at dpdk.org
> > > > > Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow
> > > > > item
> > > > >
> > > > > External Email
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > ----
> > > > > Hi
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Asaf Penso <asafp at nvidia.com>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 7:09 PM
> > > > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Asaf Penso
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >From: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree at marvell.com>
> > > > > > >Sent: Monday, September 21, 2020 11:59 AM
> > > > > > >To: Asaf Penso <asafp at nvidia.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> > > > > > ><stephen at networkplumber.org>
> > > > > > >Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Radu Nicolau
> > > > > > ><radu.nicolau at intel.com>; Declan Doherty
> > > > > > ><declan.doherty at intel.com>; Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>;
> > > > > > >NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Ferruh
> > Yigit
> > > > > > ><ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
> > > > > > ><arybchenko at solarflare.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> > > > > > ><jerinj at marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> > > > > > ><pathreya at marvell.com>; Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>;
> > > > > > >dev at dpdk.org
> > > > > > >Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow item
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Please see inline.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Thanks
> > > > > > >Tejasree
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> From: Asaf Penso <asafp at nvidia.com>
> > > > > > >> Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2020 3:09 PM
> > > > > > >> To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org>;
> > Tejasree
> > > > > > >Kondoj
> > > > > > >> <ktejasree at marvell.com>
> > > > > > >> Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Radu Nicolau
> > > > > > >> <radu.nicolau at intel.com>; Declan Doherty
> > > > > > >> <declan.doherty at intel.com>; Ori Kam <orika at nvidia.com>;
> > > > > > >> NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Ferruh
> > > > > > >> Yigit <ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
> > > > > > >> <arybchenko at solarflare.com>; Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> > > > > > >> <jerinj at marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad Raju Athreya
> > > > > > >> <pathreya at marvell.com>; Anoob Joseph <anoobj at marvell.com>;
> > > > > > >> dev at dpdk.org
> > > > > > >> Subject: [EXT] RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security
> > > > > > >> flow item
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> External Email
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >> ----
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> ---
> > > > > > >> >-----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> >From: dev <dev-bounces at dpdk.org> On Behalf Of Stephen
> > > > > Hemminger
> > > > > > >> >Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 7:46 PM
> > > > > > >> >To: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree at marvell.com>
> > > > > > >> >Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal at nxp.com>; Radu Nicolau
> > > > > > >> ><radu.nicolau at intel.com>; Declan Doherty
> > > > > > >> ><declan.doherty at intel.com>; Ori Kam <orika at mellanox.com>;
> > > > > > >> >NBU-Contact-Thomas Monjalon <thomas at monjalon.net>; Ferruh
> > > > Yigit
> > > > > > >> ><ferruh.yigit at intel.com>; Andrew Rybchenko
> > > > > > >> ><arybchenko at solarflare.com>; Jerin Jacob
> > > > > > >> ><jerinj at marvell.com>; Narayana Prasad
> > > > > > >> ><pathreya at marvell.com>; Anoob Joseph
> > <anoobj at marvell.com>;
> > > > > > >> >dev at dpdk.org
> > > > > > >> >Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ethdev: add security flow
> > > > > > >> >item
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 22:14:41 +0530 Tejasree Kondoj
> > > > > > >> ><ktejasree at marvell.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >> Introduce a new item type RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_SECURITY to
> > > > > > >> distinguish
> > > > > > >> >> plain packets from IPsec decrypted plain packets.
> > > > > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> >> Signed-off-by: Tejasree Kondoj <ktejasree at marvell.com>
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >Please provide an implementation, API's without any driver
> > > > > > >> >support should not be accepted.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >Also, we need a test for this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >[Tejasree] We would like to defer the patch and add
> > > > > > >implementation, test case in next cycle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> +1
> > > > > > >> Also, I think the word SECURITY is too high-level, and if
> > > > > > >> specifically you mention here an item for IPSec, perhaps you
> > > > > > >> can
> > > > > consider renaming.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >[Tejasree] This item matches security processed packets and not
> > > > > > >specific to IPsec.
> > > > > > >Will change commit description as follows:
> > > > > > >" Introduce a new item type RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_SECURITY to
> > > > > > >match packets that were security processed. For example, in
> > > > > > >case of inline IPsec, it can be used to distinguish plain
> > > > > > >packets from IPsec decrypted
> > > > > plain packets"
> > > > > > >Would that be fine?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be more clear, yes, thank you, but in this case I
> > > > > > suggest to have a field in the spec that you can match on it.
> > > > > > For example, is it viable to know if the packet was processed by
> > > > > > IPSec and not AES? Maybe you want to have 2 flow with this new
> > > > > > item, but still differentiate between the types.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not use mark/tag/meta to set this value?
> > > > > The application will insert a flow that sends to security and mark
> > > > > the flow with some ID then the application can check this ID.
> > > >
> > > > [Tejasree] SECURITY itself wouldn't make distinction on protocol.
> > > > It would be combined with MARK_ID to know if the packet was
> > > > processed by IPsec and not AES.
> > > >
> > > > MARK_ID alone couldn't be used as we wouldn't know if it is plain
> > > > packet or security processed plain packet.
> > > >
> > > > Rules would be as follows:
> > > > Rule #1
> > > > [ETH] [IP] [ESP] [SPI] → [SECURITY] [MARK_ID] [END] Rule #2
> > > > [SECURITY] [MARK_ID] [ETH] [IP] → [QUEUE] [END]
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand why in rule #1 you can't have the mark value to
> > > > also mark the security.
> > > > From your patch I understand that security is just one bit This
> > > > means that you can say if MSB bit in mark is set then it comes from
> > > > security.
> > >
> > > [Tejasree] We can use MSB of MARK_ID but that would mean we would be
> > > reserving it for security.
> > >
> > [Ori] but why does the PMD needs it? the application know what it needs so
> > it can use it, It is the application decision to send to the security right? So it
> > knows what values to set.
> >
> > Also the application can use tag or any other data item.
> >
> [Tejasree] PMD needs it to establish connection between security and final
> action to be done (queue for example).
> 
> First rule works on the outer packet where the inner packet would be hidden by
> the protocol (like encrypted payload in IPsec) and the second rule will act on
> the de-capsulated packet. So the packets itself are different and we cannot
> have one rule.
> 
>  In IPsec it is valid (and a very trivial usage) to have one outer flow constitute
> multiple inner flows. Without this, application will not be able to configure
> hardware to treat inner flows differently.
> 
Fully agree with you about the app needs to know if it passed security
But this goes also for example simple tunnel where the app may decap the packet
in the on the first flow and then do matching on the inner 5 tuple but it will need to know
if the packet was decaped or what is the vni.

So in your case the app will send traffic to security and mark it as one that was gone to security
then in the second rule the app will match on the mark and do what it wants with it.

I simply don't see why you need new metadata item just to mark if it passed security.

> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Ori