From: Antoine Tenart <atenart@kernel.org>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
pabeni@redhat.com
Cc: steffen.klassert@secunet.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 3/4] udp: do not transition UDP fraglist to unnecessary checksum
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 16:08:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <171094732998.5492.6523626232845873652@kwain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <65fade00e4c24_1c19b8294cf@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Quoting Willem de Bruijn (2024-03-20 14:00:48)
> Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > Quoting Willem de Bruijn (2024-03-19 14:38:20)
> > >
> > > The original patch converted to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY for a reason.
> > > The skb->csum of the main gso_skb is not valid?
> > >
> > > Should instead only the csum_level be adjusted, to always keep
> > > csum_level == 0?
> >
> > The above trace is an ICMPv6 packet being tunneled and GROed at the UDP
> > level, thus we have:
> > UDP(CHECKSUM_PARTIAL)/Geneve/ICMPv6(was CHECKSUM_NONE)
> > csum_level would need to be 1 here; but we can't know that.
>
> Is this a packet looped internally? Else it is not CHECKSUM_PARTIAL.
I'm not sure to follow, CHECKSUM_NONE packets going in a tunnel will be
encapsulated and the outer UDP header will be CHECKSUM_PARTIAL. The
packet can be looped internally or going to a remote host.
> > There is another issue (no kernel trace): if a packet has partial csum
> > and is being GROed that information is lost and the packet ends up with
> > an invalid csum.
>
> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL should be converted to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY for this
> reason. CHECKSUM_PARTIAL implies the header is prepared with pseudo
> header checksum. Similarly CHECKSUM_COMPLETE implies skb csum is valid.
> CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY has neither expectations.
But not if the packet is sent to a remote host. Otherwise an inner
partial csum is never fixed by the stack/NIC before going out.
> > Packets with CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY should end up with the same info. My
> > impression is this checksum conversion is at best setting the same info
> > and otherwise is overriding valuable csum information.
> >
> > Or would packets with CSUM_NONE being GROed would benefit from the
> > CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY conversion?
>
> Definitely. If the packet has CHECKSUM_NONE and GRO checks its
> validity in software, converting it to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY avoids
> potential additional checks at later stages in the packet path.
Makes sense. The current code really looks like
__skb_incr_checksum_unnecessary, w/o the CHECKSUM_NONE check to only
convert those packets.
Thanks!
Antoine
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-20 15:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-19 9:31 [PATCH net v2 0/4] gro: various fixes related to UDP tunnels Antoine Tenart
2024-03-19 9:31 ` [PATCH net v2 1/4] udp: do not accept non-tunnel GSO skbs landing in a tunnel Antoine Tenart
2024-03-20 2:41 ` Jakub Kicinski
2024-03-20 11:11 ` Antoine Tenart
2024-03-20 10:34 ` Nikolay Aleksandrov
2024-03-20 11:13 ` Antoine Tenart
2024-03-19 9:31 ` [PATCH net v2 2/4] gro: fix ownership transfer Antoine Tenart
2024-03-19 13:13 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-03-19 9:31 ` [PATCH net v2 3/4] udp: do not transition UDP fraglist to unnecessary checksum Antoine Tenart
2024-03-19 13:38 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-03-19 16:01 ` Antoine Tenart
2024-03-20 13:00 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-03-20 15:08 ` Antoine Tenart [this message]
2024-03-20 20:43 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-03-21 8:48 ` Antoine Tenart
2024-03-21 12:42 ` Paolo Abeni
2024-03-21 14:58 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-03-21 17:22 ` Antoine Tenart
2024-03-21 18:13 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-03-22 10:48 ` Antoine Tenart
2024-03-19 9:31 ` [PATCH net v2 4/4] udp: prevent local UDP tunnel packets from being GROed Antoine Tenart
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=171094732998.5492.6523626232845873652@kwain \
--to=atenart@kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
--cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox