struct sfc_mae_outer_rule **rulep,
struct rte_flow_error *error)
{
- struct sfc_mae_outer_rule *rule;
+ efx_mae_rule_id_t invalid_rule_id = { .id = EFX_MAE_RSRC_ID_INVALID };
int rc;
if (ctx->encap_type == EFX_TUNNEL_PROTOCOL_NONE) {
*rulep = NULL;
- return 0;
+ goto no_or_id;
}
SFC_ASSERT(ctx->match_spec_outer != NULL);
/* The spec has now been tracked by the outer rule entry. */
ctx->match_spec_outer = NULL;
+no_or_id:
/*
- * Depending on whether we reuse an existing outer rule or create a
- * new one (see above), outer rule ID is either a valid value or
- * EFX_MAE_RSRC_ID_INVALID. Set it in the action rule match
- * specification (and the full mask, too) in order to have correct
- * class comparisons of the new rule with existing ones.
- * Also, action rule match specification will be validated shortly,
- * and having the full mask set for outer rule ID indicates that we
- * will use this field, and support for this field has to be checked.
+ * In MAE, lookup sequence comprises outer parse, outer rule lookup,
+ * inner parse (when some outer rule is hit) and action rule lookup.
+ * If the currently processed flow does not come with an outer rule,
+ * its action rule must be available only for packets which miss in
+ * outer rule table. Set OR_ID match field to 0xffffffff/0xffffffff
+ * in the action rule specification; this ensures correct behaviour.
+ *
+ * If, on the other hand, this flow does have an outer rule, its ID
+ * may be unknown at the moment (not yet allocated), but OR_ID mask
+ * has to be set to 0xffffffff anyway for correct class comparisons.
+ * When the outer rule has been allocated, this match field will be
+ * overridden by sfc_mae_outer_rule_enable() to use the right value.
*/
- rule = *rulep;
rc = efx_mae_match_spec_outer_rule_id_set(ctx->match_spec_action,
- &rule->fw_rsrc.rule_id);
+ &invalid_rule_id);
if (rc != 0) {
- sfc_mae_outer_rule_del(sa, *rulep);
+ if (*rulep != NULL)
+ sfc_mae_outer_rule_del(sa, *rulep);
+
*rulep = NULL;
return rte_flow_error_set(error, rc,