From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
Cc: "Ferruh Yigit" <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
dev@dpdk.org, "Keith Wiles" <keith.wiles@intel.com>,
"Hongzhi Guo" <guohongzhi1@huawei.com>,
"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>,
stable@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] [PATCH 1/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on IP options packets
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 16:30:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YL9/De6PInNpHljE@platinum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5be5ae7d-7e7f-51d0-9bf0-4bd558788ca6@oktetlabs.ru>
On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 04:57:00PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> On 6/8/21 3:49 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 03:34:36PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >> On 6/8/21 3:29 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> >>> Hi Ferruh, Andrew,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 01:13:59PM +0300, Andrew Rybchenko wrote:
> >>>> On 4/30/21 5:48 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/27/2021 2:57 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
> >>>>>> When packet type is IPV4_EXT, the checksum is always marked as good in
> >>>>>> the mbuf offload flags.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Since we know the header lengths, we can easily call
> >>>>>> rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum() in this case too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: 8ae3023387e9 ("net/tap: add Rx/Tx checksum offload support")
> >>>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c | 4 ++--
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
> >>>>>> index 68baa18523..e7b185a4b5 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
> >>>>>> @@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ tap_verify_csum(struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)
> >>>>>> /* Don't verify checksum for multi-segment packets. */
> >>>>>> if (mbuf->nb_segs > 1)
> >>>>>> return;
> >>>>>> - if (l3 == RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4) {
> >>>>>> + if (l3 == RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4 || l3 == RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4_EXT) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Should we take 'RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4_EXT_UNKNOWN' into account?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we should.
> >>>
> >>> I think 'RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4_EXT_UNKNOWN' cannot happen here:
> >>>
> >>> - mbuf->packet_type is generated by
> >>
> >> (), which cannot
> >>> return 'RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4_EXT_UNKNOWN'
> >>
> >> My question if it is guaranteed and the only possible branch.
> >> Can application set packet_type itself and do not call
> >> rte_net_get_ptype(). Yes, typically application knows
> >> if it has IPv4 options in the header or not, but theoretically
> >> could be unaware as well.
> >
> > This function is called on the Rx path from pmd_rx_burst(), so
> > the application does not have access to the mbuf.
> >
> > The software parser that sets the packet type returns either
> > RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4 if there is no option, or RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4_EXT
> > else. The value RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4_EXT_UNKNOWN is used by PMDs that don't
> > know if there are options.
>
> I see. What I'm trying to say that there are non
> obvious assumptions here on rte_net_get_ptype()
> behaviour which can be changed. May be it makes
> sense to add comments here to highlight it.
Ok, I'll add some words about it.
Thanks!
>
> >
> >>> - right above this code, we already returned if l3 is not in
> >>> (RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4, RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV4_EXT, RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV6)
> >>
> >> If so, it sounds like it should be allowed above as well.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> if (l4 == RTE_PTYPE_L4_UDP) {
> >>>>>> udp_hdr = (struct rte_udp_hdr *)l4_hdr;
> >>>>>> if (udp_hdr->dgram_cksum == 0) {
> >>>>>> @@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ tap_verify_csum(struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> cksum = ~rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(l3_hdr, l4_hdr);
> >>>>>> - } else if (l3 == RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV6) {
> >>>>>> + } else { /* l3 == RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV6, checked above */
> >>>>>> cksum = ~rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(l3_hdr, l4_hdr);
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> mbuf->ol_flags |= cksum ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-08 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-27 13:57 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum Olivier Matz
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on IP options packets Olivier Matz
2021-04-30 14:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-06-08 10:13 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 12:29 ` Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 12:34 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 12:49 ` Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 13:57 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 14:30 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on TCP packets Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 10:18 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] net: introduce functions to verify L4 checksums Olivier Matz
2021-04-27 15:02 ` Morten Brørup
2021-04-27 15:07 ` Morten Brørup
2021-04-28 12:21 ` Olivier Matz
2021-04-28 12:42 ` Morten Brørup
2021-04-30 15:42 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-06-08 10:23 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 12:29 ` Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 12:39 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-25 15:38 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] test/cksum: new test for L3/L4 checksum API Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on IP options packets Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on TCP packets Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net: introduce functions to verify L4 checksums Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] test/cksum: new test for L3/L4 checksum API Olivier Matz
2021-07-01 9:28 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum Andrew Rybchenko
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=YL9/De6PInNpHljE@platinum \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=guohongzhi1@huawei.com \
--cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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.