From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49F0F131745 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:23:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711041784; cv=none; b=geFRgAlLTQEYuTcCoz4MrtwIfU5LMI6SdqeLpL18+govcOqRgX5qh1fbyGWBrplhxlWKux7nRLCHeu95QhBbBTywqySMw/cUNpDxuQEhFIXPtxxXvC+sMKeiqvMfc4vGSxfuKrdFWOAeCiymU3iUM5yg1w2jxERZptj4E+Q45XA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711041784; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/MeVqg9iJotRbAjFqt6wS/tSZfcmem9iZn9MwmQpq+E=; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Cc: To:Date:Message-ID; b=hmc0q82OENU/08a3J4ILOvmPZJJ251dGd25yqTyeJI3xWBXld/9pSR7kNrtJnowI2vHowhDVQ+WCUoMaeg1xas3IjIm5e1op97VZh7BjJP7+VhuUWTl3nSKWIOUXOb2PLQ2646xZfGgs5PHjln7nZkCyok4CuLxVgH5KZmJHvaw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=uOroP2ht; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="uOroP2ht" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59565C43399; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:23:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1711041782; bh=/MeVqg9iJotRbAjFqt6wS/tSZfcmem9iZn9MwmQpq+E=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Cc:To:Date:From; b=uOroP2htjneOprtoyXaJMLrQ9AeGl0fvTiGfn0LjxHuWzEnB6ykBXRxwZhaz508Fs XatclFYQpVkqDgCR8OBpPXFVl+4Mu0Q0/WiH2S8J0iSFfTg1WMj8koUuUTNOd+s4Iw dnG05DbtdeMNVkRELAmrxaRGah5Kn5Mqfr3UFXuRuPAH3CG8qC1xM+uZyNT4SuYHEc PKkkzRCr1bmXN18WGmY2DuXt90ZpVzDfHCHkizbq1m2hOL3MsJ7Ni5/nKdEWZzS8Le KUaZGk6KTos51zcN/bjJ9112HL/HjBdjCkqvmq8/9SpDL5ttY2wkKvklj27rKI1z7F SshEO+k830o9w== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <65fc4b09a422a_2191e6294a8@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> References: <20240319093140.499123-1-atenart@kernel.org> <20240319093140.499123-4-atenart@kernel.org> <65f9954c70e28_11543d294f3@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> <171086409633.4835.11427072260403202761@kwain> <65fade00e4c24_1c19b8294cf@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> <171094732998.5492.6523626232845873652@kwain> <65fb4a8b1389_1faab3294c8@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> <171101093713.5492.11530876509254833591@kwain> <65fc4b09a422a_2191e6294a8@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 3/4] udp: do not transition UDP fraglist to unnecessary checksum From: Antoine Tenart Cc: steffen.klassert@secunet.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Willem de Bruijn , davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:22:59 +0100 Message-ID: <171104177952.222877.10664469615735463255@kwain> Quoting Willem de Bruijn (2024-03-21 15:58:17) > Antoine Tenart wrote: > >=20 > > 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? >=20 > CHECKSUM_NONE cannot be converted to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY in the > receive path. Unless it is known to have been locally generated, > this means that the packet has not been verified yet. I'm not sure to follow, non-partial checksums are being verified by skb_gro_checksum_validate_zero_check in udp4/6_gro_receive before ending up in udp4/6_gro_complete. That's also probably what the original commit msg refers to: "After validating the csum, we mark ip_summed as CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY for fraglist GRO packets". With fraglist, the csum can then be converted to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY. Except for CHECKSUM_PARTIAL, as we discussed. Does that make sense? Anything we can do to help moving this forward? Thanks! Antoine