From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-188.mta0.migadu.com (out-188.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09BB713C9C0 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2024 11:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718277491; cv=none; b=L/Yw8HiET4IHLXVmF8+Jcwb7/8UEPYPv1ECxW7SZBXI1e7zw5aAlibzkhQgsmCmCl3RAlxtU3UMrgBTLrnq1ZMSC7gj4CFI1Gs8s+u5TjMxAFCPpaEeHmGmpMJWZM86e+nfL7W8+WPaxilEjdQosB+A2cQGNAmxQd1uZO+SO4tc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718277491; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PwRQ1jcic2GeGuDoKYKK7A1oVIRwq+S2s7y2dByeUfQ=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=O3FU4UfL14M9Uwd5zHl418CW+0wTOK7VrDFp2LeQ/NuU3N7ZLqHstZqaOTE2OhsgWSm1t22TQ7wKHpe+86/BqTWYCDnGg2+0jqyscHH0lTm4mGF1j8brIeE7Tg0IRa+vTl6VG2Llmp0nD3Jl0ccrloDRSvQey6v2XhNJjSyDpE8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=gJNCVWSl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="gJNCVWSl" X-Envelope-To: daniel@iogearbox.net DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1718277487; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=qxwpkH10a/Qqq116CU6pqkq3h1coQ0GMCVQ+GwfzBoU=; b=gJNCVWSlwCB66c3mMfMwwSIlZ+Dn+9K5Ab3O7Ifk6HsOfAdryY3xLHhZMw2coIzx4lr2Jb yHqQ6LhbvPi6If/wus2bXC9iyiy+ORxzqbok0tbedacSqxUjDLkJuOo5QxatOjVx3Y4xqR XoPlnjyO1LuS4Zb2xwCf2Hk3sqALKng= X-Envelope-To: andrii@kernel.org X-Envelope-To: ast@kernel.org X-Envelope-To: mykolal@fb.com X-Envelope-To: kuba@kernel.org X-Envelope-To: martin.lau@linux.dev X-Envelope-To: bpf@vger.kernel.org X-Envelope-To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <895c8713-85a7-48a6-a42c-2c1ac4fe2274@linux.dev> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:18:02 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 1/2] bpf: add CHECKSUM_COMPLETE to bpf test progs To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: Andrii Nakryiko , Alexei Starovoitov , Mykola Lysenko , Jakub Kicinski , Martin KaFai Lau , bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org References: <20240606145851.229116-1-vadfed@meta.com> <20240612074917.1afacc42@kernel.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Vadim Fedorenko In-Reply-To: <20240612074917.1afacc42@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 12/06/2024 15:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 07:58:50 -0700 Vadim Fedorenko wrote: >> @@ -1060,9 +1062,19 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_skb(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr, >> __skb_push(skb, hh_len); >> if (is_direct_pkt_access) >> bpf_compute_data_pointers(skb); >> + >> ret = convert___skb_to_skb(skb, ctx); >> if (ret) >> goto out; >> + >> + if (kattr->test.flags & BPF_F_TEST_SKB_CHECKSUM_COMPLETE) { >> + const int off = skb_network_offset(skb); >> + int len = skb->len - off; >> + >> + skb->csum = skb_checksum(skb, off, len, 0); >> + skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_COMPLETE; >> + } > > Looks good, overall, although I'd be tempted to place this before > the L2 is pushed, a few lines up, so that we don't need to worry > about network offset. Then again, with you approach there is a nice > symmetry between the pre- and post- if blocks so either way is fine: > > Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski Hi Daniel! Could you please take a look and merge the series? Thanks, Vadim