On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 11:17 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:29:35AM CEST, pab...@redhat.com 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
