Subject: tc H/W offload issue with vxlan tunnels [was: nfp: flower vxlan tunnel offload]

From: Paolo Abeni <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:29:35 +0200

Hi,

Moving to a separate theread, since I think this is more related to the
flower core infrastructure than to the netrome patches.

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 09:40 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> This kind of hooks are giving me nightmares. The code is screwed up as
> it is already. I'm currently working on conversion to callbacks. This
> part is handled in:
> https://github.com/jpirko/linux_mlxsw/commits/jiri_devel_egdevcb

Thanks for the pointer.

I skimmed quickly on the code and indeed it cleans this area a lot.
If I read it correctly the ('good') command:

tc filter add dev vxlan0 protocol ip parent ffff: flower enc_key_id 102 
   enc_dst_port 4789 src_ip 3.4.5.6 skip_sw action [...]

will generate a call to:

mlx5e_setup_tc(eth0, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, &cls_flower) via:

fl_hw_replace_filter() ->
  tc_setup_cb_call() -> 
    tc_exts_setup_cb_egdev_call() ->
      tc_setup_cb_egdev_call() ->
        tcf_action_egdev_cb_call() ->
          mlx5e_rep_setup_tc_cb()

and the 'bad' command:

tc filter add dev eth0 protocol ip parent ffff: flower enc_key_id 102 \
   enc_dst_port 4789 src_ip 3.4.5.6 skip_sw action [...]

will also call:

mlx5e_setup_tc(eth0, TC_SETUP_CLSFLOWER, &cls_flower) via:

fl_hw_replace_filter() ->
  ndo_setup_tc()

So it looks like the H/W offload hook will still be called with the
same arguments in both case, and 'bad' rule will still be pushed to the
H/W as the driver itself has no way to distinct between the two
scenarios.

[ Note: I referred to the mlx hook just for convenience, should be the
same with any driver implementing the same APIs ]

Am I missing something?

Thanks,

Paolo