> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob Kollanukkaran
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 4:33 PM
> To: Shahaf Shuler <shah...@mellanox.com>; Thomas Monjalon
> <tho...@monjalon.net>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula <pbhagavat...@marvell.com>; Hemant
> Agrawal <hemant.agra...@nxp.com>; Opher Reviv <op...@mellanox.com>;
> Alex Rosenbaum <al...@mellanox.com>; Dovrat Zifroni
> <dov...@marvell.com>; Prasun Kapoor <pkap...@marvell.com>; Nipun Gupta
> <nipun.gu...@nxp.com>; Wang, Xiang W <xiang.w.w...@intel.com>;
> Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richard...@intel.com>; yang.a.h...@intel.com;
> harry.ch...@intel.com; gu.ji...@zte.com.cn; shanjia...@chinatelecom.cn;
> zhangy....@chinatelecom.cn; lixin...@huachentel.com;
> wush...@inspur.com; yuying...@yxlink.com; fanchengg...@sunyainfo.com;
> davidf...@tencent.com; liuzho...@chinaunicom.cn;
> zhaoyon...@huawei.com; o...@yunify.com; j...@netgate.com;
> hongjun...@intel.com; j.bromh...@titan-ic.com; d...@ntop.org;
> f...@napatech.com; arthur...@lionic.com
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [RFC PATCH v1] regexdev: introduce regexdev
> subsystem
>
> > Hi Jerin,
>
> Hi Shahaf,
>
> Sorry for delay in response(Was busy with 19.11 proposal deadline). Please see
> inline.
>
> > >
> > > RegEx pattern matching applications:
> > > • Next Generation Firewalls (NGFW)
> > > • Deep Packet and Flow Inspection (DPI) • Intrusion Prevention
> > > Systems (IPS) • DDoS Mitigation • Network Monitoring • Data Loss
> > > Prevention (DLP) • Smart NICs • Grammar based content processing •
> > > URL, spam and adware filtering • Advanced auditing and policing of
> > > user/application security policies • Financial data mining - parsing
> > > of streamed financial feeds
> >
> > I think two more important use case to add (at least on the doc of
> > this
> > subsystem) are:
> > * application recognition
> > * memory introspection
>
> Sure. Will add the following from John as well.
>
> # Natural Language Processing (NLP)
> # Sentiment Analysis
> # Big Data database acceleration (Spark, Hadoop etc.) # Computational Storage
>
> >
> >
> > > +/**
> > > + * Update the rule database of a RegEx device.
> > > + *
> > > + * @param dev_id RegEx device identifier
> > > + * @param rules
> > > + * Points to an array of *nb_rules* objects of type *rte_regex_rule*
> > > structure
> > > + * which contain the regex rules attributes to be updated in rule
> database.
> > > + * @param nb_rules
> > > + * The number of PCRE rules to update the rule database.
> > > + *
> > > + * @return
> > > + * The number of regex rules actually updated on the regex device's
> > > rule
> > > + * database. The return value can be less than the value of the
> > > *nb_rules*
> > > + * parameter when the regex devices fails to update the rule database
> > > or
> > > + * if invalid parameters are specified in a *rte_regex_rule*.
> > > + * If the return value is less than *nb_rules*, the remaining PCRE
> > > rules
> > > + * at the end of *rules* are not consumed and the caller has to take
> > > + * care of them and rte_errno is set accordingly.
> > > + * Possible errno values include:
> > > + * - -EINVAL: Invalid device ID or rules is NULL
> > > + * - -ENOTSUP: The last processed rule is not supported on this device.
> > > + * - -ENOSPC: No space available in rule database.
> > > + *
> > > + * @see rte_regex_rule_db_import(), rte_regex_rule_db_export() */
> > > +uint16_t rte_regex_rule_db_update(uint8_t dev_id, const struct
> > > +rte_regex_rule
> > > *rules,
> > > + uint16_t nb_rules);
> >
> > I think the function name is not too informative. If this function
> > meant to compile the rule then it should be explicit on the function name.
>
> It is meant to be compile the rules and then update the rule database.
>
> I think, we can have either 1 or 2. Let me know your preference or If you have
> any name suggestion. I will change it accordingly.
>
> 1. rte_regex_rule_db_compile()
> 2. rte_regex_rule_db_compile_update()
@Shahaf Shuler, Thoughts?
>
>
> > > +
> > > + */
> > > +struct rte_regex_ops {
> > > +
> > > + /* W4 */
> > > + RTE_STD_C11
> > > + union {
> > > + uint64_t user_id;
> > > + /**< Application specific opaque value. An application may
> > > use
> > > + * this field to hold application specific value to share
> > > + * between dequeue and enqueue operation.
> > > + * Implementation should not modify this field.
> > > + */
> > > + void *user_ptr;
> > > + /**< Pointer representation of *user_id* */
> > > + };
> >
> > Since we target the regex subsystem for both regex and DPI I think it
> > will be good to add another uint64_t field called connection_id.
> > Device that support DPI can refer to it as another match able field
> > when looking up for matches on the given buffer.
> >
> > This field is different from the user_id, as it is not opaque for the
> > device.
>
> Is this driver specific storage place where application should not touch it?
>
> If not, Could you share the data flow of this field? Ie. Who "write" this
> Field and
> who "read" this field.
@Shahaf Shuler Thoughts?
Based on your input, I will update the next version.
>
> This is just for documentation, In any event we can add new fields.
>
> If it is only for driver usage then I think, some driver may need more 8B
> Storage. In that case I think, each driver can add its on field After W4(i.e
> existing user_id) and introduce new field called match_offset in struct
> rte_regex_ops
>
> ie. struct rte_regex_match *matches == ops + ops-> match_offset; so that, Each
> driver can add enough driver specific metadata.
>
>
>
