From: Davide Caratti <dcaratti@redhat.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/5] net: split skb_checksum_help
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:31:11 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488277871.3248.34.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36bZ_tZrXxBj9fNActemMDKYJzA5K1vK9jVED9z9+FwBg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 07:11 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL is the preferred mechanism on the transmit path this
> defers defers the checksum computation as long as possible.
> Unfortunately, if SCTP is encapsulated in UDP we will probably need to
> run the SCTP CRC on the host which will be done with your changes to
> skb_checksum_help.
right. Tunnel devices have NETIF_F_SCTP_CRC bit cleared and
NETIF_F_HW_CSUM bit set: so, in this case csum_not_inet can help
recovering non-GSO SCTP packets having ip_summed equal to
CHECKSUM_PARTIAL.
> > I'm not sure if setting CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY fits my case, because this would
> > implicitly skip RX validation when using devices like veth or loopback.
> >
> CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY can be used in the transmit path (really the
> forwarding path), however this I think this must imply that the
> checksum in the packet must be correct. Please see my post about
> drivers that are mistakingly using CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY with LRO since
> the checksum in the packet sent into the stack is not correct.
Ok, now I'm more convinced to use CHECKSUM_NONE :-)
thank you for the attention!
regards
--
davide
Â
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Davide Caratti <dcaratti@redhat.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 2/5] net: split skb_checksum_help
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:31:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488277871.3248.34.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALx6S36bZ_tZrXxBj9fNActemMDKYJzA5K1vK9jVED9z9+FwBg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 07:11 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL is the preferred mechanism on the transmit path this
> defers defers the checksum computation as long as possible.
> Unfortunately, if SCTP is encapsulated in UDP we will probably need to
> run the SCTP CRC on the host which will be done with your changes to
> skb_checksum_help.
right. Tunnel devices have NETIF_F_SCTP_CRC bit cleared and
NETIF_F_HW_CSUM bit set: so, in this case csum_not_inet can help
recovering non-GSO SCTP packets having ip_summed equal to
CHECKSUM_PARTIAL.
> > I'm not sure if setting CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY fits my case, because this would
> > implicitly skip RX validation when using devices like veth or loopback.
> >
> CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY can be used in the transmit path (really the
> forwarding path), however this I think this must imply that the
> checksum in the packet must be correct. Please see my post about
> drivers that are mistakingly using CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY with LRO since
> the checksum in the packet sent into the stack is not correct.
Ok, now I'm more convinced to use CHECKSUM_NONE :-)
thank you for the attention!
regards
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-28 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 104+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-23 16:52 [RFC PATCH net-next 0/5] net: improve support for SCTP checksums Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 1/5] skbuff: add stub to help computing crc32c on SCTP packets Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 2/5] net: split skb_checksum_help Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 20:59 ` Tom Herbert
2017-01-23 20:59 ` Tom Herbert
2017-01-24 16:35 ` David Laight
2017-01-24 16:35 ` David Laight
2017-02-02 15:07 ` Davide Caratti
2017-02-02 15:07 ` Davide Caratti
2017-02-02 16:55 ` David Laight
2017-02-02 16:55 ` David Laight
2017-02-02 18:08 ` Tom Herbert
2017-02-02 18:08 ` Tom Herbert
2017-02-27 13:39 ` Davide Caratti
2017-02-27 13:39 ` Davide Caratti
2017-02-27 15:11 ` Tom Herbert
2017-02-27 15:11 ` Tom Herbert
2017-02-28 10:31 ` Davide Caratti [this message]
2017-02-28 10:31 ` Davide Caratti
2017-02-28 10:32 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v2 1/4] skbuff: add stub to help computing crc32c on SCTP packets Davide Caratti
2017-02-28 10:32 ` Davide Caratti
2017-02-28 22:46 ` Alexander Duyck
2017-02-28 22:46 ` Alexander Duyck
2017-03-01 3:17 ` Tom Herbert
2017-03-01 3:17 ` Tom Herbert
2017-03-01 10:53 ` David Laight
2017-03-01 10:53 ` David Laight
2017-03-06 21:51 ` Davide Caratti
2017-03-06 21:51 ` Davide Caratti
2017-03-07 18:06 ` Alexander Duyck
2017-03-07 18:06 ` Alexander Duyck
2017-03-18 13:17 ` Davide Caratti
2017-03-18 13:17 ` Davide Caratti
2017-03-18 22:35 ` Tom Herbert
2017-03-18 22:35 ` Tom Herbert
2017-04-07 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v3 0/7] improve CRC32c in the forwarding path Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v3 1/7] skbuff: add stub to help computing crc32c on SCTP packets Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v3 2/7] net: introduce skb_crc32c_csum_help Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v3 3/7] sk_buff: remove support for csum_bad in sk_buff Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v3 4/7] net: use skb->csum_algo to identify packets needing crc32c Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 15:43 ` Tom Herbert
2017-04-07 15:43 ` Tom Herbert
2017-04-07 17:29 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 17:29 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 18:11 ` Tom Herbert
2017-04-07 18:11 ` Tom Herbert
2017-04-13 10:36 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-13 10:36 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v4 0/7] net: improve support for SCTP checksums Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-27 12:41 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2017-04-27 12:41 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2017-04-20 13:38 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v4 1/7] skbuff: add stub to help computing crc32c on SCTP packets Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v4 2/7] net: introduce skb_crc32c_csum_help Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-27 12:29 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2017-04-27 12:29 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2017-04-20 13:38 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v4 3/7] sk_buff: remove support for csum_bad in sk_buff Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-27 1:34 ` [sk_buff] 95510aef27: BUG:Bad_page_state_in_process kernel test robot
2017-04-27 1:34 ` kernel test robot
2017-04-29 20:21 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v4 3/7] sk_buff: remove support for csum_bad in sk_buff Tom Herbert
2017-04-29 20:21 ` Tom Herbert
2017-04-20 13:38 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v4 4/7] net: use skb->csum_not_inet to identify packets needing crc32c Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-29 20:18 ` Tom Herbert
2017-04-29 20:18 ` Tom Herbert
2017-04-20 13:38 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v4 5/7] net: more accurate checksumming in validate_xmit_skb() Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v4 6/7] openvswitch: more accurate checksumming in queue_userspace_packet() Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v4 7/7] sk_buff.h: improve description of CHECKSUM_{COMPLETE,UNNECESSARY} Davide Caratti
2017-04-20 13:38 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-29 20:20 ` Tom Herbert
2017-04-29 20:20 ` Tom Herbert
2017-04-07 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v3 5/7] net: more accurate checksumming in validate_xmit_skb() Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v3 6/7] openvswitch: more accurate checksumming in queue_userspace_packet() Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v3 7/7] sk_buff.h: improve description of CHECKSUM_{COMPLETE,UNNECESSARY} Davide Caratti
2017-04-07 14:16 ` Davide Caratti
2017-02-28 10:32 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v2 2/4] net: introduce skb_sctp_csum_help Davide Caratti
2017-02-28 10:32 ` Davide Caratti
2017-02-28 10:32 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v2 3/4] net: more accurate checksumming in validate_xmit_skb Davide Caratti
2017-02-28 10:32 ` Davide Caratti
2017-02-28 19:50 ` Tom Herbert
2017-02-28 19:50 ` Tom Herbert
2017-02-28 10:32 ` [PATCH RFC net-next v2 4/4] Documentation: update notes on checksum offloading Davide Caratti
2017-02-28 10:32 ` Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 3/5] net: introduce skb_sctp_csum_help Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 4/5] net: more accurate checksumming in validate_xmit_skb Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` [RFC PATCH net-next 5/5] Documentation: add description of skb_sctp_csum_help Davide Caratti
2017-01-23 16:52 ` Davide Caratti
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1488277871.3248.34.camel@redhat.com \
--to=dcaratti@redhat.com \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tom@herbertland.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.