From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F5C9C44529 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:27:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10ACC40875; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:27:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at osuosl.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4-SbgaCpHlxW; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:27:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Comment: SPF check N/A for local connections - client-ip=140.211.166.142; helo=lists1.osuosl.org; envelope-from=intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org; receiver= DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp4.osuosl.org BBB3E40877 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=osuosl.org; s=default; t=1784647652; bh=u4TeXif3XA0edOu5Wg4bLz8wX2a3RQrUFGCChfCYTAI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=3uOn/wF8ssIfrUfdEp8J/o+T6dehg0uVSZR/Nkzz+4uVUznY6KJv8xIv90wyMQD/p rV+iDxRZ8eqT5FwZOviB997t1XY6J7MkW8E0op8fPoJUsuZUIGzlrhhokDzAV2icb2 K5FaXvoJOzBlpjNnUL9UZ9ZDM0MlN5zR5f1t48hAQpxrqxsQkPZC2jLepfzSPnnxf/ eDawZEt9qE7O575MLfAiTNLTz+JldoaXg5i8tM5UsihFbdPUoyJm8VTfr1JZlfHYwN qu6e9qdXqVqwKdtIoBN69+4rTvWIuI8VKpa1ba4zLlks8pPoc+fMdRyKbQtgocjrIm 9NAkC6POmKqMQ== Received: from lists1.osuosl.org (lists1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.142]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB3E40877; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23644109F for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158F240164 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:27:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at osuosl.org Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qf2snI6KxmZp for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:27:31 +0000 (UTC) Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25; helo=sea.source.kernel.org; envelope-from=kuba@kernel.org; receiver= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 smtp2.osuosl.org 6FE1B40071 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp2.osuosl.org 6FE1B40071 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org (sea.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FE1B40071 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:27:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (quasi.space.kernel.org [100.103.45.18]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6696643A6F; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:27:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2ADAF1F00A3A; Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 08:27:28 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Stanislav Fomichev Cc: Lorenzo Bianconi , Donald Hunter , "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 Message-ID: <20260721082728.74142e6c@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20260715-bpf-xdp-meta-rxcksum-v5-0-623d5c0d0ab7@kernel.org> <20260715-bpf-xdp-meta-rxcksum-v5-8-623d5c0d0ab7@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1784647650; bh=u4TeXif3XA0edOu5Wg4bLz8wX2a3RQrUFGCChfCYTAI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=igXyWV2gARFCsyTb5BOcsDN/NU4C6Tf+kBJtZazDmZj8BBcbTRDGFCFcyaMmILHsY QqOey/xYnRYOCVqSPDAUNArqve8bTEvNwmd9iE0TzAJT5JKrHTjIJm1qQ2ufXT6zMc mLnc7TB/2eN7mCk6wip5ta6L228/AjxK+adP/CgeLYhYs4ZWCcrQ/nuMans0RNf89A wuqRj18TyGw8K9tUR/URpr2LeV5R42JtNFmnrfBUqPI++TcFf39dIRx7agqCna5QJ2 94B5fOaMl0dgzAKVyMBO7g3v0N4n8aE71TIwB7tGH/vBqPDxc+3oMg5wo7wfuVT5lb H0hckyjPPn1/A== X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org X-Mailman-Original-Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key, unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20260515 header.b=igXyWV2g Subject: Re: [Intel-wired-lan] [PATCH bpf-next v5 8/8] selftests: net: add test for XDP_PASS skb checksum invalidation X-BeenThere: intel-wired-lan@osuosl.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel Wired Ethernet Linux Kernel Driver Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-wired-lan-bounces@osuosl.org Sender: "Intel-wired-lan" On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 12:32:55 -0700 Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > (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? Documenting as expected behavior which no driver currently follows is a bit silly. I thought the ask was to sketch out the plan of explicitly updating/invalidating the checksum even if we don't implement it today? > > > 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. +1, and please add proper tests for the real drivers exercising the kfunc with traffic (would be good to try to send a non-TCP/UDP frame to try to cajole the driver into using COMPLETE).