Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: unbreak cusmed packet for small buffer XDP

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:40:30AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2017年06月28日 11:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:45:18AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2017年06月28日 10:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:14:34AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 2017年06月28日 10:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 09:54:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > We should allow csumed packet for small buffer, otherwise XDP_PASS
> > > > > > > won't work correctly.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Fixes commit bb91accf2733 ("virtio-net: XDP support for small buffers")
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > > > > The issue would be VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_DATA_VALID might be set.
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > I think it's safe. For XDP_PASS, it work like in the past.
> > > > That's the part I don't get. With DATA_VALID csum in packet is wrong, XDP
> > > > tools assume it's value.
> > > DATA_VALID is CHECKSUM_UNCESSARY on the host, and according to the comment
> > > in skbuff.h
> > > 
> > > 
> > > "
> > >   *   The hardware you're dealing with doesn't calculate the full checksum
> > >   *   (as in CHECKSUM_COMPLETE), but it does parse headers and verify
> > > checksums
> > >   *   for specific protocols. For such packets it will set
> > > CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY
> > >   *   if their checksums are okay. skb->csum is still undefined in this case
> > >   *   though. A driver or device must never modify the checksum field in the
> > >   *   packet even if checksum is verified.
> > > "
> > > 
> > > The csum is correct I believe?
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > That's on input. But I think for tun it's output, where that is equivalent
> > to CHECKSUM_NONE
> > 
> > 
> 
> Yes, but the comment said:
> 
> "
> CKSUM_NONE:
>  *
>  *   The skb was already checksummed by the protocol, or a checksum is not
>  *   required.
>  *
>  * CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY:
>  *
>  *   This has the same meaning on as CHECKSUM_NONE for checksum offload on
>  *   output.
>  *
> "
> 
> So still correct I think?
> 
> Thanks

Hmm maybe I mean NEEDS_CHECKSUM actually.

I'll need to re-read the spec.

-- 
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization