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: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 09:48:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <171101093713.5492.11530876509254833591@kwain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <65fb4a8b1389_1faab3294c8@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Quoting Willem de Bruijn (2024-03-20 21:43:55)
> Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > 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.
>
> That is on transmit. To come into contact with UDP_GRO while having
> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL the packet will have to loop into the receive path,
> in some way that triggers GRO. Perhaps through gro_cells, as other
> GRO paths are hardware NIC drivers.
I get what you meant now, thanks. Yes, those Tx packets loop into the Rx
path. One easy way is through veth pairs, eg. packet get tunneled in a
netns, connected to another one via a veth pair.
> > > > 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.
>
> The stack will only offload a single checksum. With local checksum
> offload, this can be the inner checksum and the outer can be cheaply
> computed in software. udp_set_csum() handles this. It indeed sets lco
> if the inner packet has CHECKSUM_PARTIAL. Otherwise it sets ip_summed
> to CHECKSUM_PARTIAL, now pointing to the outer UDP header.
>
> You're right. Regardless of whether it points to the inner or outer
> checksum, a conversion of CHECKSUM_PARTIAL to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY
> will break checksum offload in the forwarding case.
>
> > > > 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.
If I sum up our discussion CHECKSUM_NONE conversion is wanted,
CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY conversion is a no-op and CHECKSUM_PARTIAL
conversion breaks things. What about we just convert CHECKSUM_NONE to
CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY?
diff --git a/net/ipv6/udp_offload.c b/net/ipv6/udp_offload.c
index 50a8a65fad23..44779d4c538b 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/udp_offload.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/udp_offload.c
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ INDIRECT_CALLABLE_SCOPE int udp6_gro_complete(struct sk_buff *skb, int nhoff)
if (skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY) {
if (skb->csum_level < SKB_MAX_CSUM_LEVEL)
skb->csum_level++;
- } else {
+ } else if (skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_NONE) {
skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY;
skb->csum_level = 0;
}
Or directly call __skb_incr_checksum_unnecessary.
Thanks,
Antoine
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-21 8:49 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
2024-03-20 20:43 ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-03-21 8:48 ` Antoine Tenart [this message]
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=171101093713.5492.11530876509254833591@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