[dpdk-users] Question about range type of DPDK ACL

[Shyam Shrivastav]

Yes it can be but generally not used. Check dotted decimal IP address to
integer conversion, ACL library expects host byte order while adding acl
rules and network byte order while matching ..

FROM ADD

rules    : Array of rules to add to the ACL context. Note that all fields
in rte_acl_rule structures are expected to be in host byte order. Each rule
expected to be in the same format and not exceed size specified at ACL
context creation time.

FROM CLASSIFY

data      : Array of pointers to input data buffers to perform search. Note
that all fields in input data buffers supposed to be in network byte order
(MSB).


On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:20 AM, 이두환 <letsme at gmail.com> wrote:

> IPv4 address can be just 4byte integer value.
> 10.10.10.10 means 0x0a0a0a0a and 20.20.20.20 means 0x14141414
> 10.10.10.30 is 0x0a0a0a1e and it is greater than 0x0a0a0a0a and less then
> 0x14141414.
> So, I think it should be matched but the result was not.
> Did I miss something?
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Shyam Shrivastav <
> shrivastav.shyam at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE is for linear integer range like port numbers
>> For ip addresses RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_MASK should be used.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:57 PM, 이두환 <letsme at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello everyone.
>>>
>>> I want to implement some feature like ACL using DPDK ACL library.
>>> so, I defined rule like below.
>>>
>>> struct acl_match_component
>>> {
>>>     uint8_t protocol;
>>>     uint32_t sip;
>>>     uint32_t dip;
>>>     uint16_t sport;
>>>     uint16_t dport;
>>>     uint16_t in_if;
>>>     uint16_t out_if;
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> struct rte_acl_field_def ipv4_defs[7] = {
>>>     {
>>>         .type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
>>>         .size = sizeof(uint8_t),
>>>         .field_index = 0,
>>>         .input_index = 0,
>>>         .offset = 0
>>>     },
>>>     {
>>>         .type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
>>>         .size = sizeof(uint32_t),
>>>         .field_index = 1,
>>>         .input_index = 1,
>>>         .offset = offsetof(struct acl_match_component, sip)
>>>     },
>>>     {
>>>         .type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
>>>         .size = sizeof(uint32_t),
>>>         .field_index = 2,
>>>         .input_index = 2,
>>>         .offset = offsetof(struct acl_match_component, dip)
>>>     },
>>>     {
>>>         .type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
>>>         .size = sizeof(uint16_t),
>>>         .field_index = 3,
>>>         .input_index = 3,
>>>         .offset = offsetof(struct acl_match_component, sport)
>>>     },
>>>     {
>>>         .type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
>>>         .size = sizeof(uint16_t),
>>>         .field_index = 4,
>>>         .input_index = 3,
>>>         .offset = offsetof(struct acl_match_component, dport)
>>>     },
>>>     {
>>>         .type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
>>>         .size = sizeof(uint16_t),
>>>         .field_index = 5,
>>>         .input_index = 4,
>>>         .offset = offsetof(struct acl_match_component, in_if)
>>>     },
>>>     {
>>>         .type = RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE,
>>>         .size = sizeof(uint16_t),
>>>         .field_index = 6,
>>>         .input_index = 4,
>>>         .offset = offsetof(struct acl_match_component, out_if)
>>>     },
>>> };
>>>
>>> I defined 32bit IPv4 address filed as RTE_ACL_FIELD_TYPE_RANGE type.
>>> and I set rte_acl_field for IP field like below.
>>>
>>> value.u32 = IPv4(10,10,10,10);
>>> mask_range.u32 = IPv4(20,20,20,20);
>>>
>>> In this case, I think IP 10.10.10.15 and 10.10.10.30 should be matched.
>>> but result was IP 10.10.10.15 was matched and 10.10.10.30 was not
>>> matched.
>>>
>>> I am using DPDK 16.04 and there was no example in the DPDK source using
>>> 32bit field as range type.
>>> Range type with 16bit field (ex. port number) works well.
>>> And, DPDK 17.05 has no meaningful changes on ACL library compare to DPDK
>>> 16.04
>>>
>>> Do you have any idea about this?
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>
>>
>