From ce3e28c0d41fdac1ea0dc6ab747811303f791a16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Alaa Hleihel <ahleihel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 10:54:06 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 146/312] [netdrv] net/mlx5e: Add mlx5e_flower_parse_meta
 support

Message-id: <20200512105530.4207-41-ahleihel@redhat.com>
Patchwork-id: 306913
Patchwork-instance: patchwork
O-Subject: [RHEL8.3 BZ 1789382 040/124] net/mlx5e: Add mlx5e_flower_parse_meta support
Bugzilla: 1789382
RH-Acked-by: Tony Camuso <tcamuso@redhat.com>
RH-Acked-by: Kamal Heib <kheib@redhat.com>
RH-Acked-by: Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>

Bugzilla: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/1789382
Upstream: v5.6-rc1

commit 6d65bc64e232896251daba7c43933f0f35859bc3
Author: wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>
Date:   Tue Jan 7 17:16:06 2020 +0800

    net/mlx5e: Add mlx5e_flower_parse_meta support

    In the flowtables offload all the devices in the flowtables
    share the same flow_block. An offload rule will be installed on
    all the devices. This scenario is not correct.

    It is no problem if there are only two devices in the flowtable,
    The rule with ingress and egress on the same device can be reject
    by driver.

    But more than two devices in the flowtable will install the wrong
    rules on hardware.

    For example:
    Three devices in a offload flowtables: dev_a, dev_b, dev_c

    A rule ingress from dev_a and egress to dev_b:
    The rule will install on device dev_a.
    The rule will try to install on dev_b but failed for ingress
    and egress on the same device.
    The rule will install on dev_c. This is not correct.

    The flowtables offload avoid this case through restricting the ingress dev
    with FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_META.

    So the mlx5e driver also should support the FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_META parse.

    Signed-off-by: wenxu <wenxu@ucloud.cn>
    Acked-by: Roi Dayan <roid@mellanox.com>
    Signed-off-by: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>

Signed-off-by: Alaa Hleihel <ahleihel@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Frantisek Hrbata <fhrbata@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c
index 916a49b916c9..5f56830ab709 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en_tc.c
@@ -1797,6 +1797,40 @@ static void *get_match_headers_value(u32 flags,
 			     outer_headers);
 }
 
+static int mlx5e_flower_parse_meta(struct net_device *filter_dev,
+				   struct flow_cls_offload *f)
+{
+	struct flow_rule *rule = flow_cls_offload_flow_rule(f);
+	struct netlink_ext_ack *extack = f->common.extack;
+	struct net_device *ingress_dev;
+	struct flow_match_meta match;
+
+	if (!flow_rule_match_key(rule, FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_META))
+		return 0;
+
+	flow_rule_match_meta(rule, &match);
+	if (match.mask->ingress_ifindex != 0xFFFFFFFF) {
+		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack, "Unsupported ingress ifindex mask");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	ingress_dev = __dev_get_by_index(dev_net(filter_dev),
+					 match.key->ingress_ifindex);
+	if (!ingress_dev) {
+		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
+				   "Can't find the ingress port to match on");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	if (ingress_dev != filter_dev) {
+		NL_SET_ERR_MSG_MOD(extack,
+				   "Can't match on the ingress filter port");
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int __parse_cls_flower(struct mlx5e_priv *priv,
 			      struct mlx5_flow_spec *spec,
 			      struct flow_cls_offload *f,
@@ -1817,6 +1851,7 @@ static int __parse_cls_flower(struct mlx5e_priv *priv,
 	u16 addr_type = 0;
 	u8 ip_proto = 0;
 	u8 *match_level;
+	int err;
 
 	match_level = outer_match_level;
 
@@ -1860,6 +1895,10 @@ static int __parse_cls_flower(struct mlx5e_priv *priv,
 						    spec);
 	}
 
+	err = mlx5e_flower_parse_meta(filter_dev, f);
+	if (err)
+		return err;
+
 	if (flow_rule_match_key(rule, FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_BASIC)) {
 		struct flow_match_basic match;
 
-- 
2.13.6