From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pg1-f172.google.com (mail-pg1-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) (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 379F8224B1B for ; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 02:55:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757386501; cv=none; b=foCmDLM0PkpHHo6UrIjhyX3Plfpy7N3Dg6dEjgrhirrm8fabxwuKypkChFc8g2OjtnwXfmVV5YFT7fHyw2qo8cw+cmYByBQXT9NmXt6anOQoZ9deDaN+UYOx91L9Gow5UCaH1mLSWdpQ70ix8IddN9h0bWXtGtpTRxWVCu0KrA8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757386501; c=relaxed/simple; bh=SODWK8iRJW+Kd8ixS7tgSWOcjpMFP1OafTXxlBzMwMo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=JzsNUd9gwZRwxQsK6QhLwt469GNS0Yul2/t9fujYji2rhn5ihnA+zbv80l1LFC4VxIq7bDc5Sl6tnnnyKMDzMi3FdT9jSRZXHfUkY8VH2iURpQeqs17WwY+J+WljjImoP7NQMcoZ52UoODCx+7/71CwPOdY7uBhv1NEo6LS9Jbs= 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=YSylk1/8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.215.172 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="YSylk1/8" Received: by mail-pg1-f172.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-b4f9d61e7deso3230047a12.2 for ; Mon, 08 Sep 2025 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1757386499; x=1757991299; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=on/vw6koKUQbJCI+KSSCTjkF92ULMha9wVjXRly0E+U=; b=YSylk1/8VSuT/FiSJTw54xMw6Z8RtrH9kKCvK/RjKpyHO6nvOc6L7XmIFusnLVx373 EC984V/g5Jzfv3F2fpz8uDHogUCns/QaMNW/Lbg08GPA+izpopkEfFeMiRAliA2T/FHq pllOXw/9j8skEN4b/VwWujo9/XIzZqmzkn49jhgm9BFtqLdExnuPO5waDycgYXqd8g+Y 3qx+iZOT0GKvSMIJynCjqOK4T00BVfxMuxPQuZlCtNt36DTpv4byBKFKvWIKm8BTJHqW e6ag2s8jjd47RYGfZNaEOPe2xBFdPUSESQ7IljQRR/iVoDVx7QY2Vnws280nDg/TAzUY 3h5w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1757386499; x=1757991299; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=on/vw6koKUQbJCI+KSSCTjkF92ULMha9wVjXRly0E+U=; b=o+9iIs2yNfV6/hdxfRafzlvdekLg+hIuXpYiegl4zS82/41QkUx46mu30lZsMmVSZQ LdO8iMTanTjflJqwJRk1diSwCTqHaILJVjAby45hEfWfKDOhpPoxP3bX80rlJxKg+2K7 1BGzo6gJsc/68YIyNJFWgTuGlpTeya8xR1yU3GhBDTnOgOV5fJ9QBNIsZuNrg1/D2CuZ NkKE0W76tlxKOuzoqIkUSMVh8mjf1nTHjmjA9D8jAng2y2G7pPvSN+pvWaPRrdgiR5gY JPvBXSUBjcNURW1GGICyWxfx1Z8pkP+mcIai85z3MJYXF1MynCRFaynQ2HYrVvcXapdc 7NQg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCX2C/EiQJWAMZuho1xan0xWA/lIfm7Zi1a7vep/Hy8m2IHX42IqEjd1/XuUfnIZyHcnY4fSbGY=@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzSv4uadeK5qzVzp+DlT9sktP7Hzdsj1rAUH0XJvnbkTyW5IG9W ocywbgEzATvvP45UovF+PtYV3n7ljyrUZ+xa/OVEoqEqQkXjaupMBHdY X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuafH1Z/SIhll6Jn+wFyH6rB2wifRDMcj2pENadL89CZ2dfDT5M+CboYfYNr9h 4LGROtdTn3jDdGh4rfY25+BkUYxBPMEg/t8u2w5vDAB01GLpbbnX+AiI06LRjTa4fV6wZFuQm9S Goe3TMfoyG1SjVqFy3DyjUUpd8DX57Rr9YR+gkqxbBZPyY1jSpiezwLE0dZYssRccGEXei8RVfV YTlkZw1ElO/+pV/dFhvQJnuDohWsKPQG7/6JYH64lXEWcjLinjloOE8e/RC6vC3zmIu+l1H+2qC Qaqv2DdY/FNYuAAV1iMbLcqPIwFVcdRSUCpTnn4dVvbjSZ87l51ltjBwODV9aDgLc2pxB9wxbce 5SyXBeQ5H1m1IkMA9GOwOKxVRphIcceZxL4HM/g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG6fQEprMYRmastVBiiyh6tI+QaloXPCDm6oS/Iuu8O/6MRoczfFOWee08VD0/s5rJFKkaB+w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d510:b0:24e:9e47:2327 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-25170f37b63mr143674305ad.30.1757386499327; Mon, 08 Sep 2025 19:54:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fedora ([209.132.188.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-24cccba6624sm127708925ad.99.2025.09.08.19.54.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 08 Sep 2025 19:54:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 02:54:49 +0000 From: Hangbin Liu To: Sabrina Dubroca Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Jiri Pirko , Simon Horman , Ido Schimmel , Shuah Khan , Stanislav Fomichev , Kuniyuki Iwashima , Ahmed Zaki , Alexander Lobakin , bridge@lists.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 net-next 5/5] selftests/net: add offload checking test for virtual interface Message-ID: References: <20250902072602.361122-1-liuhangbin@gmail.com> <20250902072602.361122-6-liuhangbin@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: bridge@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 11:48:58PM +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote: > > > > After we add the netdevsim to bond, > > > > the bond also shows "esp-hw-offload off" as the flag is inherit > > > > in dev->hw_enc_features, not dev->features. > > > > > > Did you mean dev->hw_features? > > > > No, the xfrm_features in patch 01 updates dev->hw_enc_features, not > > dev->hw_features. > > Ok. But hw_enc_features is not the reason ethtool shows > "esp-hw-offload off". This line is: > > bond_dev->hw_features |= BOND_XFRM_FEATURES; > > (from bond_setup) Ah, there it is. You remind me that I have a bonding xfrm feature patch not posted yet. > > > Do you think if we should update dev->hw_features in the > > patch? > > For dev->hw_features (and dev->features) maybe not, since that depends > on the upper device's features and implementation. I'm not sure we can > have a common function without changing the behavior on at least one > type of device. > > But maybe ndo_fix_features could use a common > netdev_fix_features_from_lowers? bond/team/bridge have very similar > implementations. Thanks, will add this to my todo list. > > > > > It looks the only way to check if bond dev->hw_enc_features has NETIF_F_HW_ESP > > > > is try set xfrm offload. As > > > > > > Was this test meant to check hw_enc_features? > > > > > > To check hw_enc_features, I think the only way would be sending GSO > > > packets, since it's only used in those situations. > > > > Oh.. That would make the test complex. Can we ignore this test first? > > Ok for me. > > > BTW, I'm a bit lost in the callbacks.gso_segment. e.g. > > > > esp4_gso_segment > > - xfrm4_outer_mode_gso_segment > > - xfrm4_transport_gso_segment > > - ops->callbacks.gso_segment > > > > But who calls esp4_gso_segment? I can't find where the features is assigned. > > inet_gso_segment via inet_offloads[] (ESP is a L4 proto like UDP etc). Ah, I only saw ipip_gso_segment calls inet_gso_segment, didn't notice ipv4_offload_init() also init the callback with inet_gso_segment. Thanks Hangbin