On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 1:29 PM Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 12:03 PM > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> > > Cc: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>; qemu-dev <qemu- > > de...@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer protocol for > > filter- > > mirror/redirector > > > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 11:27 AM Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 11:17 AM > > > > To: Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com>; Markus Armbruster > > > > <arm...@redhat.com> > > > > Cc: qemu-dev <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Li Zhijian > > > > <lizhij...@cn.fujitsu.com> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 1/3] net/filter: Optimize transfer protocol > > > > for filter- mirror/redirector > > > > > > > > > > > > 在 2021/11/4 下午1:37, Zhang, Chen 写道: > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I wonder if we need to introduce new parameter, e.g > > > > >>>>> force_vnet_hdr here, then we can always send vnet_hdr when it > > is enabled. > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> Otherwise the "vnet_hdr_support" seems meaningless. > > > > >>>> Yes, Current "vnet_hdr_support" default enabled, and > > > > >>>> vnet_hdr_len > > > > >>> already forced from attached nf->netdev. > > > > >>>> Maybe we can introduce a new parameter "force_no_vnet_hdr" > > here > > > > to > > > > >>> make the vnet_hdr_len always keep 0. > > > > >>>> If you think OK, I will update it in next version. > > > > >>> Let me explain, if I was not wrong: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> "vnet_hdr_support" means whether or not to send vnet header > > length. > > > > >>> If vnet_hdr_support=false, we won't send the vnet header. This > > > > >>> looks the same as you "force_no_vent_hdr" above. > > > > >> Yes, It was. But this series changed it. > > > > >> Current "vnet_hdr_support" can't decide whether send vnet header > > > > >> length, we always send it even 0. > > > > >> It will avoid sender/receiver transfer protocol parse issues: > > > > >> When sender data with the vnet header length, but receiver can't > > > > >> enable the "vnet_hdr_support". > > > > >> Filters will auto setup vnet_hdr_len as local nf->netdev and > > > > >> found the issue when get different vnet_hdr_len from other filters. > > > > >> > > > > >>> And my "force_vnet_hdr" seems duplicated with > > > > vnet_hdr_support=true. > > > > >>> So it looks to me we can leave the mirror code as is and just > > > > >>> change the compare? (depends on the mgmt to set a correct > > > > >>> vnet_hdr_support) > > > > >> OK, I will keep the > > > > >> filter-mirror/filter-redirector/filter-rewriter > > > > >> same as this version. > > > > >> For the colo-compare module, It will get primary node's filter > > > > >> data's vnet_hdr_len as the local value, And compare with > > > > >> secondary node's, because it is not attached any nf->netdev. > > > > >> So, it looks compare module's "vnet_hdr_support" been auto > > > > >> configuration from the filter transport protocol. > > > > >> If the "force_vnet_hdr" means hard code a compare's local > > > > >> vnet_hdr_len rather than come from input filter's data? > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks > > > > >> Chen > > > > >> > > > > > Hi Jason/Markus, > > > > > > > > > > Rethink about it, How about keep the original "vnet_hdr_support" > > > > > function, And add a new optional parameter "auto_vnet_hdr" for > > > > filters/compare? > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a way but rethink of the whole thing. I wonder what if we just > > > > enable "vnet_hdr_support" by default for filter and colo-compare? > > > > > > It's works by default for user use -device virtio-net-pci and e1000... > > > But it can't resolve this series motivation, how to fix/check user > > configuration issue: > > > For example user enable " vnet_hdr_support " filter-mirror and disable > > > " vnet_hdr_support" filter-redirector And connect both filter modules by > > chardev socket. > > > In this case guest will get wrong network workload and filters didn’t > > > perceive any abnormalities, but in fact, the whole system is no longer > > working. > > > This series will report error and try to correct it. > > > > The problem is how "auto_vnet_hdr" help in this case. It's a new parameter > > which may lead to more wrong configuration? > > No, the "auto_vnet_hdr" will fix most the wrong configuration issues as > "vnet_hdr_support" correct setting. > When we enable the "auto_vnet_hdr", the original "vnet_hdr_support" will no > effect.
So it looks to me it still depends on the management to set "auto_vnet_hdr" to be true? (or make it enabled by default) If we can do that, isn't it much more simpler to make vnet_hdr_support by default? I think I may miss something. Thanks > > Thanks > Chen > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Thanks > > > > >>>> Chen > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Thanks > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > >
