On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 10:49:09AM +0000, Dekel Peled wrote:
> Thanks, PSB.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrien Mazarguil <adrien.mazarg...@6wind.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2019 12:15 PM
> > To: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>
> > Cc: wenzhuo...@intel.com; jingjing...@intel.com;
> > bernard.iremon...@intel.com; Yongseok Koh <ys...@mellanox.com>;
> > Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Ori Kam
> > <or...@mellanox.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] ethdev: add actions to modify TCP header fields
> >
> > Hi Dekel,
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 06:13:19PM +0300, Dekel Peled wrote:
> > > Add actions:
> > > - INC_TCP_SEQ - Increase sequence number in the outermost TCP header.
> > > - DEC_TCP_SEQ - Decrease sequence number in the outermost TCP
> > header.
> > > - INC_TCP_ACK - Increase acknowledgment number in the outermost TCP
> > > header.
> > > - DEC_TCP_ACK - Decrease acknowledgment number in the outermost TCP
> > > header.
> > >
> > > Original work by Xiaoyu Min.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Dekel Peled <dek...@mellanox.com>
> > <snip>
> > > +Action: ``INC_TCP_SEQ``
> > > +^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > +
> > > +Increase sequence number in the outermost TCP header.
> > > +
> > > +If this action is used without a valid RTE_FLOW_ITEM_TYPE_TCP flow
> > > +pattern item, behavior is unspecified, depending on PMD
> > implementation.
> >
> > I still don't agree with the wording as it implies one must combine this
> > action
> > with the TCP pattern item or else, while one should simply ensure the
> > presence of TCP traffic somehow. This may be done by a prior filtering rule.
> >
> > So here's a generic suggestion which could be used with pretty much all
> > modifying actions (other actions have the same problem and will have to be
> > fixed as well eventually):
> >
> > Using this action on non-matching traffic results in undefined behavior.
> >
> > This comment applies to all instances in this patch.
>
> I accept your suggestion, indeed the existing actions have the problematic
> condition.
> However I would like to currently leave this patch as-is for consistency.
> I will send a fix patch for next release, applying the updated text to all
> modify-header actions.
Please do it now as it's much more difficult to change an existing API
later (think deprecation notices and endless discussions); even seemingly
minor documentation issues like this one may affect applications.
> > <snip>
> > > +/**
> > > + * @warning
> > > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior notice
> > > + *
> > > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_INC_TCP_SEQ
> > > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_DEC_TCP_SEQ
> > > + *
> > > + * Increase/Decrease outermost TCP sequence number */ struct
> > > +rte_flow_action_modify_tcp_seq {
> > > + rte_be32_t value; /**< Value to increase/decrease by. */ };
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * @warning
> > > + * @b EXPERIMENTAL: this structure may change without prior notice
> > > + *
> > > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_INC_TCP_ACK
> > > + * RTE_FLOW_ACTION_TYPE_DEC_TCP_ACK
> > > + *
> > > + * Increase/Decrease outermost TCP acknowledgment number.
> > > + */
> > > +struct rte_flow_action_modify_tcp_ack {
> > > + rte_be32_t value; /**< Value to increase/decrease by. */ };
> >
> > Thanks for adding experimental tags and comments, however you didn't
> > reply anything about using a single action, or at least a single structure
> > for
> > add/sub/set? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
>
> It's either 2 actions with 1 parameters, or 1 action with 2 parameters.
> The current implementation is more straight-forward in my opinion.
I generally also prefer the one action per thing to do approach, but seeing
the kind of actions you're adding, I fear we'll soon end up with lots of
similar rte_flow_action_* structures modifying a single 32-bit value in some
way.
So for the same reasons as above, I think it's the right time to define a
shared structure to rule them all, or maybe even let users provide a
rte_be32_t/uint32_t/whatever pointer directly as a conf pointer (not
as straightforward to document though).
An object to rule them all would look something like that:
union rte_flow_integer {
rte_be64_t be64;
rte_le64_t le64;
uint64_t u64;
int64_t i64;
rte_be32_t be32;
rte_le32_t le32;
uint32_t u32;
int32_t i32;
uint8_t u8;
int8_t i8;
};
Then actions that need a single integer value only have to document which
field is relevant to them. How about that?
--
Adrien Mazarguil
6WIND
