Re: Checksum offload queries

[Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com>]

On 09/12/15 16:01, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:14 AM, Edward Cree <ecree@solarflare.com> > wrote: >> Convincing hardware designers to go the HW_CSUM way and only fill >> in the inner checksum, when their current approach can fill in >> both inner and outer checksums (though admittedly only for the >> protocols the hardware knows about), might be difficult. >> > But again, NETIF_F_IP[V6]_CSUM and NETIF_F_HW_CSUM describe > capabilities._not_ the interface. The interface currently allows only > one checksum to be offloaded at time, if we want to be able to > offload two checksums then the interface needs to be changed-- > probably something like defining a new capability like > NETIF_F_HW_2CSUMS, adding another csum_start,csum_offset pair into > the sk_buff.
Which only pushes the problem onto when someone wants to nest
encapsulations.  (I heard you like tunnels, so I put a tunnel in your
tunnel so you can encapsulate while you encapsulate.)
Or to put it another way, 2 isn't a number; the only numbers are 0, 1
and infinity ;)
Perhaps in practice 2 csums would be enough, for now.  But isn't the
whole point of the brave new world of generic checksums that it should
be future-proof?

> The stack will need to be modified also wherever CHECKSUM_PARTIAL is > handled.
Naturally.

> If your device is trying do offload more than one checksum on its own > accord without being asked to do so by the stack it is doing the > wrong thing!
>From the stack's perspective: yes, it is doing the wrong thing.  (I've
been discussing with colleagues today how we could change that, and I
think we can, but it involves having _three_ hardware TXQs per kernel
queue, instead of the two we have now...)
But from the outside perspective, the system as a whole isn't doing
anything bad - the packet going on the network is valid and just
happens to have both inner and outer checksums filled in.  Is there a
good reason _why_ the stack forbids a device to do this?  (Sure, it's
not necessary, and makes the hardware more complex.  But the hardware's
already been made, and it's not a *completely* useless thing to do...)

> Please stop adding this disclaimer to your messages, it is not > appropriate for the list.
Actually, the copy that goes the list doesn't have the disclaimer.  But
thanks to a combination of crappy email server and corporate politics,
it still sticks it on any CCs.  If it were up to me (it's not) we
wouldn't add that disclaimer to anything ever.
I'm now attempting (for the nth time) to convince our mgmt to get rid
of the disclaimer, but I don't hold out much hope :(