On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:37:33AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > On 15/05/2023 18.09, Larysa Zaremba wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 05:36:12PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 12/05/2023 17.26, Larysa Zaremba wrote: > > > > Implement functionality that enables drivers to expose VLAN tag > > > > to XDP code. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > [...] > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/core/xdp.c b/net/core/xdp.c > > > > index 41e5ca8643ec..eff21501609f 100644 > > > > --- a/net/core/xdp.c > > > > +++ b/net/core/xdp.c > > > > @@ -738,6 +738,30 @@ __bpf_kfunc int bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_hash(const struct xdp_md *ctx, u32 *hash, > > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > } > > > > > > Remember below becomes part of main documentation on HW metadata hints: > > > - https://kernel.org/doc/html/latest/networking/xdp-rx-metadata.html > > > > > > Hint compiling locally I use: > > > make SPHINXDIRS="networking" htmldocs > > > > > > > +/** > > > > + * bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_ctag - Read XDP packet inner vlan tag. > > > > > > Is bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_ctag a good function name for the inner vlan tag? > > > Like wise below "stag". > > > > > > I cannot remember if the C-tag or S-tag is the inner or outer vlan tag. > > > > > > When reading BPF code that use these function names, then I would have > > > to ask Google for help, or find-and-read this doc. > > > > > > Can we come-up with a more intuitive name, that e.g. helps when reading > > > the BPF-prog code? > > > > Well, my reasoning for such naming is that if someone can configure s-tag > > stripping in ethtool with 'rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse', they shouldn't have any > > problem with understanding those function names. > > > > Naming is hard. My perspective is conveying the meaning without having > to be knowledgeable about ethtool VLAN commands. My perspective is a > casual BPF-programmer that reads "bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_stag()". > Hopefully we can choose a name that says "vlan" somewhere, such that the > person reading this doesn't have to lookup and find the documentation to > deduct this code is related to VLANs. > > > One possible improvement that comes to mind is maybe (similarly ethtool) calling > > c-tag just 'tag' and letting s-tag stay 'stag'. Because c-tag is this default > > 802.1q tag, which is supported by various hardware, while s-tag is significantly > > less widespread. > > > > But there are many options, really. > > > > What are your suggestions? > > > > One suggestion is (the symmetrical): > * bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_vlan_inner_tag > * bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_vlan_outer_tag > > As you say above the first "inner" VLAN tag is just the regular 802.1Q > VLAN tag. The concept of C-tag and S-tag is from 802.1ad that > introduced the concept of double tagging. > > Thus one could argue for shorter names like: > * bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_vlan_tag > * bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_vlan_outer_tag > AFAIK, outer tag is a broader term, it's pretty often used for stacked 802.1Q headers. I can't find what exactly is an expected behavior for rxvlan and rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse in ethtool, but iavf documentation states that rxvlan "enables outer or single 802.1Q VLAN stripping" and rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse "enables outer or single 802.1ad VLAN stripping". This is in consistent with how ice hardware behaves. More credible sources would be welcome. What about: * bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_vlan_tag * bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_vlan_qinq_tag > > > > > > > > + * @ctx: XDP context pointer. > > > > + * @vlan_tag: Return value pointer. > > > > + * > > > > > > IMHO right here, there should be a description. > > > > > > E.g. for what a VLAN "tag" means. I assume a "tag" isn't the VLAN id, > > > but the raw VLAN tag that also contains the prio numbers etc. > > > > > > It this VLAN tag expected to be in network-byte-order ? > > > IMHO this doc should define what is expected (and driver devel must > > > follow this). > > > > Will specify that. > > > > > > > > > + * Returns 0 on success or ``-errno`` on error. > > > > + */ > > > > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_ctag(const struct xdp_md *ctx, u16 *vlan_tag) > > > > +{ > > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > +/** > > > > + * bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_stag - Read XDP packet outer vlan tag. > > > > + * @ctx: XDP context pointer. > > > > + * @vlan_tag: Return value pointer. > > > > + * > > (p.s. Googling I find multiple definitions of what the "S" in S-tag > means. The most reliable or statistically consistent seems to be > "Service tag", or "Service provider tag".) > > The description for the renamed "bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_vlan_outer_tag" > should IMHO explain that the outer VLAN tag is often refered to as the S-tag > (or Service-tag) in Q-in-Q (802.1ad) terminology. Perhaps we can even spell > out that some hardware support (and must be configured via ethtool) to > extract this stag. > > A dump of the tool rx-vlan related commands: > > $ ethtool -k i40e2 | grep rx-vlan > rx-vlan-offload: on > rx-vlan-filter: on [fixed] > rx-vlan-stag-hw-parse: off [fixed] > rx-vlan-stag-filter: off [fixed] > > > > > > > > + * Returns 0 on success or ``-errno`` on error. > > > > > > IMHO we should provide more guidance to expected return codes, and what > > > they mean. IMHO driver developers must only return codes that are > > > described here, and if they invent a new, add it as part of their patch. > > > > That's a good suggestion, I will expand the comment to describe error codes used > > so far. > > > > > > > > See, formatting in bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_hash and check how this gets > > > compiled into HTML. > > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > +__bpf_kfunc int bpf_xdp_metadata_rx_stag(const struct xdp_md *ctx, u16 *vlan_tag) > > > > +{ > > > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > > >
