Sure,
This is an example of using connection tracking with testpmd:
start
set verbose 1
set conntrack com peer 1 is_orig 1 enable 1 live 1 sack 1 cack 0 last_dir 0
liberal 0 state 1 max_ack_win 7 r_lim 5 last_win 510 last_seq 2632987379
last_ack 2532480967 last_end 2632987379 last_index 0x8
set conntrack orig scale 7 fin 0 acked 1 unack_data 0 sent_end 2632987379
reply_end 2633016339 max_win 28960 max_ack 2632987379
set conntrack rply scale 7 fin 0 acked 1 unack_data 0 sent_end 2532480967
reply_end 2532546247 max_win 65280 max_ack 2532480967
flow indirect_action 0 create ingress action conntrack / end
flow create 0 group 3 ingress pattern eth / ipv4 / tcp / end actions
indirect 0 / jump group 5 / end
flow create 0 group 5 ingress pattern eth / ipv4 / tcp / conntrack is 1 /
end actions queue index 5 / end
before my changes, conntracking was missed in the flow items list i got from
the parsing of testpmd for the second flow created.
I just aligned the parsing of connection tracking to be the same as other
items.(e.g ITEM_PORT_REPRESENTOR)
Regards,
Maayan Kashani
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@amd.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 12 June 2024 19:35
> To: Maayan Kashani <mkash...@nvidia.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Dariusz Sosnowski <dsosnow...@nvidia.com>; Raslan Darawsheh
> <rasl...@nvidia.com>; sta...@dpdk.org; Ori Kam <or...@nvidia.com>;
> Aman Singh <aman.deep.si...@intel.com>; Yuying Zhang
> <yuying.zh...@intel.com>; Bing Zhao <bi...@nvidia.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix parsing for connection tracking item
>
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> On 6/2/2024 11:23 AM, Maayan Kashani wrote:
> > In command line translation there were missing fields for connection
> > tracking item, as a result this item was not parsed and was missing
> > from the items list received from test-pmd.
> >
> > Fixes: 4d07cbefe3ba ("app/testpmd: add commands for conntrack")
> > Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> > Signed-off-by: Maayan Kashani <mkash...@nvidia.com>
> >
>
> Hi Maayan,
>
> I can't really trace why .priv and 'parse_vc' is required, can you please help
> understanding by providing more data?
>
> What was the old testpmd command and what was old behavior with that
> command, why it was wrong?
> What is the new behavior and why this update was needed, how new code
> solved the issue?
>
> testpmd flow command is still somewhat cryptic to me, and without running
> code and debugging it is very hard for me to detect the missing parts.
>
>
> > ---
> > app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c | 3 +++
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > index 60ee9337cf..1f9d5ebd05 100644
> > --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline_flow.c
> > @@ -5797,9 +5797,12 @@ static const struct token token_list[] = {
> > [ITEM_CONNTRACK] = {
> > .name = "conntrack",
> > .help = "conntrack state",
> > + .priv = PRIV_ITEM(CONNTRACK,
> > + sizeof(struct
> > + rte_flow_item_conntrack)),
> > .next = NEXT(NEXT_ENTRY(ITEM_NEXT),
> NEXT_ENTRY(COMMON_UNSIGNED),
> > item_param),
> > .args = ARGS(ARGS_ENTRY(struct rte_flow_item_conntrack,
> > flags)),
> > + .call = parse_vc,
> > },
> > [ITEM_PORT_REPRESENTOR] = {
> > .name = "port_representor",
