> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 10:42 AM > 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 4:43 PM Zhang, Chen <chen.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 4:30 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 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) > > > > Yes, I plan to make "auto_vnet_hdr" enabled by default in next version. > > > > > > > > If we can do that, isn't it much more simpler to make > > > vnet_hdr_support by default? > > > > Yes, For compatibility filters and COLO still work with the original > "vnet_hdr_support". > > For new users, they can enable the new "auto_vnet_hdr" to avoid some > issues. > > Question still, so we have > > 1) enable vnet_hdr_support by default > 2) add auto_vnet_hdr and enable it by default > > Using 1) seems much more simpler and can solve this issue. If we depends > on the default behaviour, it should be almost the same. If we want to teach > the mgmt, both should work. Any other advantages of 2)?
Using 1) we can't ensure user configure parts of module by itself. (vnet_hdr_support = off). In this case, filter data already wrong and the filters can't report any transfer error here. Using 2) filters will find/report this issue and try to fix it from local vnet_hdr_len. Thanks Chen > > Thanks > > > > > Thanks > > Chen > > > > > > > > I think I may miss something. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Chen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>> Thanks > > > > > > > >>>> Chen > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> Thanks > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
