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

From: Paolo Abeni <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 11:46:58 +0200

On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 11:17 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:29:35AM CEST, [email-masked] wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Why "bad"?

Such rule is coped differently by the SW and the HW data path.

a rule like:

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_hw \
   action action mirred redirect eth0_vf_1

will match 0 packets, while:

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 action mirred redirect eth0_vf_1

[just flipped 'skip_sw' and 'skip_hw' ]
will match the vxlan-tunneled packets. I understand that one of the
design goal for the h/w offload path is being consistent with the sw
one, but that does not hold in the above scenario.

> Regarding the distinction, driver knows if user add a rule directly to
> the eth0, or if the eth0 is egress device in the action. Those are 2
> separete driver entrypoints - of course, talking about code with my
> changes.

ok, but than each driver should catch the scenario "rule with tunnel
match over non tunnel device" and cope with them properly - never match
it - why don't simply avoiding pushing such rules to the H/W ? 

Cheers,

Paolo