[dpdk-dev,v1] net/tap: fix isolation mode toggling
Checks
Commit Message
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@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>
---
drivers/net/tap/tap_flow.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
Comments
> On May 7, 2018, at 3:36 AM, Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
/raw/row
> 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
/raw/row
> 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@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@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;
Using double negation is not very readable IMO, I would prefer this converted to a true boolean type if required.
variable ‘set' here should a 0 or 1 already, please expand this code to not use !!, using this in modern compilers should not be required. I understand this maybe shorted to write, but not very readable IMO and we need to make DPDK readable.
> /*
> * 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
>
Regards,
Keith
Hi Keith,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wiles, Keith [mailto:keith.wiles@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 3:33 PM
> To: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pascal Mazon <pascal.mazon@6wind.com>; Thomas
> Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>; Olga Shern <olgas@mellanox.com>;
> stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v1] net/tap: fix isolation mode toggling
>
>
>
> > On May 7, 2018, at 3:36 AM, Ophir Munk <ophirmu@mellanox.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> /raw/row
Fixed in v3
> > 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
>
> /raw/row
Fixed in v3
> > 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@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ophir Munk <ophirmu@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;
>
> Using double negation is not very readable IMO, I would prefer this
> converted to a true boolean type if required.
>
Double negation usage was eliminated.
> variable ‘set' here should a 0 or 1 already, please expand this code to not use
> !!, using this in modern compilers should not be required. I understand this
> maybe shorted to write, but not very readable IMO and we need to make
> DPDK readable.
>
> > /*
> > * 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
> >
>
> Regards,
> Keith
>>
>> Using double negation is not very readable IMO, I would prefer this
>> converted to a true boolean type if required.
>>
>
> Double negation usage was eliminated.
Thanks I acked already.
>
>> variable ‘set' here should a 0 or 1 already, please expand this code to not use
>> !!, using this in modern compilers should not be required. I understand this
>> maybe shorted to write, but not very readable IMO and we need to make
>> DPDK readable.
>>
Regards,
Keith
@@ -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",