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

[Doohwan Lee]

Thank you for your opinion.
But I already checked byte ordering. It is used correctly like you
mentioned.
And, ACL library works good except 32bit matching with range type.

DPDK ACL library uses multi-bit trie with 8-bit stride.
I guess that implementation of the trie doesn't support 32bit range
matching.


On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Shyam Shrivastav <
shrivastav.shyam at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>