From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pz2-f1.google.com (mail-pz2-f1.google.com [74.125.228.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DA8038E8A1 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 19:33:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.228.1 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784575982; cv=none; b=C4oClOCk2+CE5buQ/9S3MWBvyNZSksPK0vWMzd1r5nCadgmy40IdLWqOBE1uDdvTi0MeBTP0zR8ZexBsF2jgz5t4oo8unZFQkwzhdr/ULS7wnDPWHN6wKyzSYjpsX2A6ZrlKfEs0uF9Tm17P60bg29We66TydvSjSybc+Td+TRc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784575982; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wR02Cf1ZX0VxOSrwhtcrXjbKc2v02WfoOYRrstsXQbI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=iNuJ19NizZMaL8Lap0mIkoMcbkQPQlk4lp+6rPClFdzlXcX0LrdbFeHhnPpa9uWJHmX5apWqEQUeEtxJoAbJAEWJgSICk4cGkinQnSAA1s0Hniis5yt6kNMgNbf3a/c5CktoVEB6rmbCM5WvO1RRCCJiaExeuWueNxZ/wGdIwGs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=pwCOCy8H; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.228.1 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="pwCOCy8H" Received: by mail-pz2-f1.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-ca696c4b152so2977713a12.1 for ; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:33:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1784575980; x=1785180780; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=mipM1cLecOb4t56l8llNyfwcJ8p4RmBXYxGw64Z8Tfc=; b=pwCOCy8HH2MWDXCkvEJnVfs9I69br6aV6ga2GiAmc9/cQq8zCSacCwb9BbZZdKjxJ4 UXgfKdY3KHbnODG3M9OSuXqj05saJmp15cM2EBU0DaqSA0DAx3BSEgElUvnPNuvOrWUS hNSjggdNBP0l+9yPIKeD3C/t1GcJ7yOY2xSObSPDK2orsBmC0Fku68NBPc/IFozXBtLV SSt5Y6bUhLmWuXDTkfl6ja/AYca9O9CmdFwkqLeD+G5LUWo44xrjYgS7kIRzTfwYywyI eVyxbi7paW1qBET+TK6mju0vM+EI4CyRqhMCydzL/rBehVtISM7K6HQM14PDl998CnOE fvoQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1784575980; x=1785180780; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to :content-type; bh=mipM1cLecOb4t56l8llNyfwcJ8p4RmBXYxGw64Z8Tfc=; b=CDJlneIFISm9onYPXSszByMFNB6NWCCtECDt1GdfclKGNuE9958/jff/QZQ/vi0yxP dCH8Et4wl9E3sGBD0KGu4Mr7Gj+/naU5SUSJSrttV3r6lxtvkZ8ZDx0PR03Y2lIQMkxN yK6r6POS6cxPqxy47HFomPTUT2NAWcjyQsUNOoKek/EccWt8DLuij4AVKCRHeQqAPK9d B5DSsZpL+JZqJYwJ8GOoBeVhy2E/LhHGVqSvQKgUCrsqfRzGyHrHqs6ZOqZoKKyQ+RYZ tC9StE7RsnPgaCzLKMX0XkGK1MhfoKmk755hF6usen5oU2pLrLgPCJ9GFms4IuHNxAJ7 LVBQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+Rp1q65324Pm/YCUCz8WmYKV5FRvfE6nL96JG9Vvqv7/7jw1Xpv8l9FDItLIi/p+7lonxcs=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwiPqv5nwqAkxpkZjJCPrf1kWU4g1OOYcMFX75XH8S1SWB7u3JN mXbw7c5KYoq3LbngBHg83UbQeHCIwY8Ps8EKeQg+nQyht2W1agBCLX/4 X-Gm-Gg: AfdE7cntTe5yqdUCaujRJ7jrMG/5tR28UOjHj/KrHE1rLaw631h34uAM+TxBUjoJBJi e6zeKJCUthX44PTCpMEi7EXtdBFrpGPD8L01709xMSOaHvdMAGCR2ZLHKY+HoPvmvNDoj4+6Ir1 1uJrilr+DswCa16P21W1ceawdrBAO+M6xiWU9tI+dR2OaLg1psBfSuIamTC9ygY71hkJDJ5/e+z diDgNCVCvH2LvlBEA+bcVpSaEjS2YknWpiZ5w5QP67u4Bq7eZvPtGy9gQ0iQrXctSJjM8Xa8vjg vDlKt1fs7Yznx+flUscBEXNgs3Qgg4QP8OLvwmxvtV/W+EOY00BRQn/atm3DzYDXbig/28RJ7B6 e9yBL9a/AS/nhvroivK23KSqK2TSEl6D3mqsqxYlUEEsgKeEnEvjCBpdqXVygg0TftaVT5g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:80a:b0:847:97a4:d6b3 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-84c2922630cmr15623327b3a.16.1784575980551; Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2a03:2880:2ff:1::]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d2e1a72fcca58-84c2f1601d6sm5999817b3a.50.2026.07.20.12.32.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:33:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:32:55 -0700 From: Stanislav Fomichev To: Lorenzo Bianconi Cc: Donald Hunter , Jakub Kicinski , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Alexei Starovoitov , Daniel Borkmann , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , John Fastabend , Stanislav Fomichev , Andrew Lunn , Tony Nguyen , Przemek Kitszel , Alexander Lobakin , Andrii Nakryiko , Martin KaFai Lau , Eduard Zingerman , Song Liu , Yonghong Song , KP Singh , Hao Luo , Jiri Olsa , Shuah Khan , Maciej Fijalkowski , Jonathan Corbet , Shuah Khan , Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi , Emil Tsalapatis , Vladimir Vdovin , Jakub Sitnicki , netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, intel-wired-lan@lists.osuosl.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 8/8] selftests: net: add test for XDP_PASS skb checksum invalidation Message-ID: References: <20260715-bpf-xdp-meta-rxcksum-v5-0-623d5c0d0ab7@kernel.org> <20260715-bpf-xdp-meta-rxcksum-v5-8-623d5c0d0ab7@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bpf@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On 07/16, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > On Jul 16, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > On 07/15, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > Add a test that verifies skb->ip_summed is set to CHECKSUM_NONE > > > when a device running in XDP mode creates an skb from a xdp_buff > > > if the attached ebpf program returns an XDP_PASS. > > > The test attaches an XDP program returning XDP_PASS, and a TC > > > ingress program that runs the bpf_skb_rx_checksum() kfunc to > > > inspect the resulting skb. After XDP_PASS the driver must invalidate > > > any previously computed hardware RX checksum since XDP may have > > > modified the packet data. > > > The BPF program counts packets per checksum type in a map, and the > > > test runner verifies that after sending traffic the CHECKSUM_NONE > > > counter is non-zero while CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY and CHECKSUM_COMPLETE > > > counters are zero. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi > > > --- > > > Documentation/networking/xdp-rx-metadata.rst | 5 ++ > > > .../selftests/drivers/net/hw/xdp_metadata.py | 55 +++++++++++++++- > > > .../selftests/net/lib/skb_metadata_csum.bpf.c | 73 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/networking/xdp-rx-metadata.rst b/Documentation/networking/xdp-rx-metadata.rst > > > index 93918b3769a3..7434ac98242a 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/networking/xdp-rx-metadata.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/networking/xdp-rx-metadata.rst > > > @@ -90,6 +90,11 @@ conversion, and the XDP metadata is not used by the kernel when building > > > ``skbs``. However, TC-BPF programs can access the XDP metadata area using > > > the ``data_meta`` pointer. > > > > [..] > > > > > +If a driver is running in XDP mode, any existing hardware RX checksum > > > +(``CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY`` or ``CHECKSUM_COMPLETE``) must be invalidated > > > +by setting ``skb->ip_summed`` to ``CHECKSUM_NONE`` before passing the > > > +skb to the kernel, since XDP may have modified the packet data. > > > + > > > In the future, we'd like to support a case where an XDP program > > > can override some of the metadata used for building ``skbs``. > > > > Sorry for keeping nitpicking on this, but I'm still not convinced that > > it is what we currently do. From my previous reply: > > no worries :) > My current take-away from the previous discussion is we just need to document > what would be the driver expected behaviour adding a kselftest for it (without > modifying any driver). > > > > > > > Looking at a few drivers: > > > > - bnxt (bnxt_rx_pkt) does UNNECESSARY - ok > > > > - mlx5 (mlx5e_handle_csum) does UNNECESSARY and skips COMPLETE if there is > > > > bpf prog attached > > > > - fbnic (fbnic_rx_csum) - can do COMPLETE even with xdp attached? > > > > - gve (gve_rx) - can do COMPLETE even with xdp attached? > > > > (although for gve I might be wrong, there is also gve_rx_skb_csum that only > > does UNNECESSARY). > > > > I'd wait for Jakub to chime in, but it feels like we should just document > > what we currently do as a recommended approach: for the drivers > > that support COMPLETE, do not report it when the bpf program is attached. > > Both NONE and UNNECESSARY are ok. > > I am not completely sure the UNNECESSARY case is different from the COMPLETE > one. What are we supposed to do if the driver reports UNNECESSARY and the ebpf > program modifies some fields covered by the rx-checksum? For unnecessary, I think the safe expectation is that the bpf program will update the value of the checksum in the packet if it touches the data? > > Also, did you run this test on real HW? NIPA now has HW tests, maybe it > > makes sense to route this series via net-next to get the real coverage? > > What about splitting this series and have two different series: > - bpf-next: add xdp rx kfunc and related selftest > - net-next: add kselftest for the driver expected behaviour. > > What do you think? I'd post everything to net-next to get the HW coverage. Once you get all the acks we can ask the maintainers' guidance.