From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 A545343935F; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:12:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783523530; cv=none; b=XSze/4W1EcjFJk7vKKGgZblrdFQsohscW7k75nX+QZaD/uoQ+Q5qB1l3W/YoNvQpzrc9hKUvUFpxvLCCq5BNWchl7mWDH/n4v+h5qCC3n/ohp2gLksuQp1rLtPddZUIeRhuvzkNM1JdShEEEQYvfIi7iZjuyFLOJnXpmxo+fGN4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783523530; c=relaxed/simple; bh=eZm0r2DiTpoq/10mInPMNUJ6HALbq9YR8YcTjrOAKHI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mDGj/Zj97zCnKxcMBiDm7VRN7C8XT/y1yHwM6HNZnv+xkvwnoOUP31/fw0vmv+VrPkKEL28v6ZBhpOvSuG61rXi6dW/JhFLzRAvkjLK3nfsWK7o+4CNw/YmHjYufF8aWCZwWFqe5KQ/k8ZA0rq7Ur0MoK7AjvH9Yr5hSKlZZ2Cs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=cr4sAWnz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="cr4sAWnz" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0D14B1F000E9; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 15:12:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1783523529; bh=nyY1MWhLb4Wq5gDtA7z3gSgPQVymbQDkrz21Siw0Hjk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=cr4sAWnzV4LQ0SCxq+97uhFdA9kAEz60uPyDydZ1AerCsEiKtbU7+a9Oy+hlstCNT /1LwCV9UfoBV5xfX6Q5nys+rPY4itZBiEkHrMLTsgl3CCQHLbAi6xLC0TjfQQ7Pksh Q0ZafeK84RnC9dhV7G8z5HLIMSOYDtsDMam3jQddzJSzoiDqG8NtktnYNbY2yJ+7lG BG+T9bZFWPYvg275MgzeHdJ5a1Gl+E138vs96qutdobF9PX8dJ3qD3Ado4tWhKQk9S UFG5L3Puy932ZMeqoWg5GLMruTguBhVM+neSK0jdsmi0kI5bsdlHPd7VnSaKpA45Js F+iWy2idbGY3g== Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 17:12:07 +0200 From: Lorenzo Bianconi To: Vladimir Vdovin Cc: sdf@fomichev.me, kuba@kernel.org, andrii@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, hawk@kernel.org, john.fastabend@gmail.com, martin.lau@linux.dev, sdf.kernel@gmail.com, bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/1] selftests: drv-net: XDP RX checksum metadata test Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="25fzO8AAG30TYajc" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --25fzO8AAG30TYajc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Hi Lorenzo, Hi Vladimir, >=20 > Here is the driver selftest for your XDP RX checksum series, as > discussed. It is written against your b4/bpf-xdp-meta-rxcksum branch > (the bitmask ip_summed + cksum/cksum_level API) and applies on top of > it rebased onto net-next, since the drv-net xdp_metadata.py test it > extends only exists there. Feel free to pick it straight into v4. >=20 > It adds an xdp_rx_csum program to xdp_metadata.bpf.o and two cases > gated on the "checksum" xdp-rx-metadata feature (SKIP on devices > without it, e.g. netdevsim): >=20 > - xdp_rx_csum_valid (tcp/udp variants): traffic with a correct > checksum from the remote endpoint must be reported with a usable > verdict (CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY and/or CHECKSUM_COMPLETE); >=20 > - xdp_rx_csum_invalid: UDP with a corrupted L4 checksum (net/lib > csum -E) must not be reported as CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY. thx for working on it. Unfortunately I do not have the time to look into it= a the moment. I rebased my b4/bpf-xdp-meta-rxcksum branch on top of net-next = one. Feel free to repost it adding your patch on top of it. Regards, Lorenzo >=20 >=20 > One question on the invalid case: I assert only that UNNECESSARY is not > set for a corrupted checksum (COMPLETE may still legitimately be > reported, since it carries the raw sum for wrong packets too). Is that > the documented expectation you and Jakub want the test to encode, or > should it be stricter? >=20 > Thanks, > Vladimir >=20 > Vladimir Vdovin (1): > selftests: drv-net: add XDP RX checksum metadata tests >=20 > .../selftests/drivers/net/hw/xdp_metadata.py | 103 ++++++++++++++++ > .../selftests/net/lib/xdp_metadata.bpf.c | 112 ++++++++++++++++-- > 2 files changed, 202 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) >=20 > --=20 > 2.47.0 >=20 --25fzO8AAG30TYajc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQTquNwa3Txd3rGGn7Y6cBh0uS2trAUCak5oxwAKCRA6cBh0uS2t rJryAP9qRx+2qAVR1A56PZcxxMhoGDEv8KyL++5yZgQrru6nIQEAtI8wSuvf/kHZ AF8m77h6e7pqD0n1l3s/QjHue4ib8AE= =zMyG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --25fzO8AAG30TYajc--