From: Ivan Malov Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:12:53 +0000 (+0100) Subject: net/sfc: add verify method to flow validate path X-Git-Url: http://git.droids-corp.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=8b61dd99a186d60cfa38bc385bce490e11a4f01c;p=dpdk.git net/sfc: add verify method to flow validate path The new method is needed to make sure that a flow being validated will have a chance to be accepted by the FW. MAE-specific implementation of the method should compare the class of a rule being validated with the corresponding classes of active rules, and, if no matches found, make a request to the FW. Support for the latter will be added in future. Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov Signed-off-by: Andrew Rybchenko Reviewed-by: Andy Moreton --- diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c index 634818cdf2..f69dd6ac5d 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.c @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec { sfc_flow_parse_cb_t *parse; + sfc_flow_verify_cb_t *verify; sfc_flow_cleanup_cb_t *cleanup; sfc_flow_insert_cb_t *insert; sfc_flow_remove_cb_t *remove; @@ -39,6 +40,7 @@ static sfc_flow_remove_cb_t sfc_flow_filter_remove; static const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec sfc_flow_ops_filter = { .parse = sfc_flow_parse_rte_to_filter, + .verify = NULL, .cleanup = NULL, .insert = sfc_flow_filter_insert, .remove = sfc_flow_filter_remove, @@ -46,6 +48,7 @@ static const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec sfc_flow_ops_filter = { static const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec sfc_flow_ops_mae = { .parse = sfc_flow_parse_rte_to_mae, + .verify = sfc_mae_flow_verify, .cleanup = sfc_mae_flow_cleanup, .insert = NULL, .remove = NULL, @@ -2543,6 +2546,41 @@ sfc_flow_remove(struct sfc_adapter *sa, struct rte_flow *flow, return rc; } +static int +sfc_flow_verify(struct sfc_adapter *sa, struct rte_flow *flow, + struct rte_flow_error *error) +{ + const struct sfc_flow_ops_by_spec *ops; + int rc = 0; + + ops = sfc_flow_get_ops_by_spec(flow); + if (ops == NULL) { + rte_flow_error_set(error, ENOTSUP, + RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, NULL, + "No backend to handle this flow"); + return -rte_errno; + } + + if (ops->verify != NULL) { + /* + * Use locking since verify method may need to + * access the list of already created rules. + */ + sfc_adapter_lock(sa); + rc = ops->verify(sa, flow); + sfc_adapter_unlock(sa); + } + + if (rc != 0) { + rte_flow_error_set(error, rc, + RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, NULL, + "Failed to verify flow validity with FW"); + return -rte_errno; + } + + return 0; +} + static int sfc_flow_validate(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, const struct rte_flow_attr *attr, @@ -2559,6 +2597,8 @@ sfc_flow_validate(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, return -rte_errno; rc = sfc_flow_parse(dev, attr, pattern, actions, flow, error); + if (rc == 0) + rc = sfc_flow_verify(sa, flow, error); sfc_flow_free(sa, flow); diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h index 03a68d8633..164e9f9a9a 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_flow.h @@ -159,6 +159,9 @@ typedef int (sfc_flow_parse_cb_t)(struct rte_eth_dev *dev, struct rte_flow *flow, struct rte_flow_error *error); +typedef int (sfc_flow_verify_cb_t)(struct sfc_adapter *sa, + struct rte_flow *flow); + typedef void (sfc_flow_cleanup_cb_t)(struct sfc_adapter *sa, struct rte_flow *flow); diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c index 7e4397762b..42200c3f7e 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.c @@ -148,3 +148,78 @@ fail_parse_pattern: fail_init_match_spec_action: return rc; } + +static bool +sfc_mae_rules_class_cmp(struct sfc_adapter *sa, + const efx_mae_match_spec_t *left, + const efx_mae_match_spec_t *right) +{ + bool have_same_class; + int rc; + + rc = efx_mae_match_specs_class_cmp(sa->nic, left, right, + &have_same_class); + + return (rc == 0) ? have_same_class : false; +} + +static int +sfc_mae_action_rule_class_verify(struct sfc_adapter *sa, + struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *spec) +{ + const struct rte_flow *entry; + + TAILQ_FOREACH_REVERSE(entry, &sa->flow_list, sfc_flow_list, entries) { + const struct sfc_flow_spec *entry_spec = &entry->spec; + const struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *es_mae = &entry_spec->mae; + const efx_mae_match_spec_t *left = es_mae->match_spec; + const efx_mae_match_spec_t *right = spec->match_spec; + + switch (entry_spec->type) { + case SFC_FLOW_SPEC_FILTER: + /* Ignore VNIC-level flows */ + break; + case SFC_FLOW_SPEC_MAE: + if (sfc_mae_rules_class_cmp(sa, left, right)) + return 0; + break; + default: + SFC_ASSERT(false); + } + } + + sfc_info(sa, "for now, the HW doesn't support rule validation, and HW " + "support for inner frame pattern items is not guaranteed; " + "other than that, the items are valid from SW standpoint"); + return 0; +} + +/** + * Confirm that a given flow can be accepted by the FW. + * + * @param sa + * Software adapter context + * @param flow + * Flow to be verified + * @return + * Zero on success and non-zero in the case of error. + * A special value of EAGAIN indicates that the adapter is + * not in started state. This state is compulsory because + * it only makes sense to compare the rule class of the flow + * being validated with classes of the active rules. + * Such classes are wittingly supported by the FW. + */ +int +sfc_mae_flow_verify(struct sfc_adapter *sa, + struct rte_flow *flow) +{ + struct sfc_flow_spec *spec = &flow->spec; + struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *spec_mae = &spec->mae; + + SFC_ASSERT(sfc_adapter_is_locked(sa)); + + if (sa->state != SFC_ADAPTER_STARTED) + return EAGAIN; + + return sfc_mae_action_rule_class_verify(sa, spec_mae); +} diff --git a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h index 536dadd092..4c5bc4c6ce 100644 --- a/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h +++ b/drivers/net/sfc/sfc_mae.h @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@ int sfc_mae_rule_parse_pattern(struct sfc_adapter *sa, const struct rte_flow_item pattern[], struct sfc_flow_spec_mae *spec, struct rte_flow_error *error); +sfc_flow_verify_cb_t sfc_mae_flow_verify; #ifdef __cplusplus }