From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-qv1-f48.google.com (mail-qv1-f48.google.com [209.85.219.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C29A8E57B for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:13:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.48 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711044819; cv=none; b=b6MwNE7EWZ0sIWjK+tsMVkcbOxSGISD5z7t/HPNbVmANrZnNmvQixu8nCoALDS9019xTErUitFguLNfIvsg6kP5o7vgSXQiN5J3DGrOoiK57gZLrlUWdVbnI9Z2PfwTNyyNdlYlCZQPGGjWBAUdqY4BPY4hPjIBF98QZV2MHNl0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1711044819; c=relaxed/simple; bh=NeqEFbM/GuBohUeq3XtNKKAHUAoEpwds4r/DXvi3a7E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=SV8ch+UZFbmVgPe+bThCySHTUBhTMKjjE4ni0nIUwSDV4bkPbXt+yvEMAWXlgWrNMaxvoYFQvJmr7ShGmpiRQ8z2uZ/bEHbmlGfPKjZ9o49o17was81nNWUhPatr0R+M0wqlJvElbflSqF38FvcwDh3VlmG6kgoId7XHR+IzP/0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=bpWSYiTq; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.219.48 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="bpWSYiTq" Received: by mail-qv1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 6a1803df08f44-690d7a8f904so21361536d6.1 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:13:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1711044816; x=1711649616; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:references :in-reply-to:message-id:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=rWQnoaNGoM6g3Y8+ZCFtXlAiCdEz9aXtDHKGEKH5S1g=; b=bpWSYiTq9pFVX7axxIGljA6LV7pLHu6QwLuY/mGzEidfRQOz0LHjlRuYBNiIxBkzFr hEqpcRtH6JkAVyBGy4ks6pYL5d8RsCsj10m+lAR0Uaa1Kihpe/gqPGs1zyafdWH2b2TC R6JjXGi2hlLU0JqSX5zFGI6CjB9EaqLsRr4tcA5PwvizNC5qe0DKlYLGOfEROBCVYrv0 JZknVOoJG728JHUyW+cpwi55BXPK7/uEF4cN9fnb9+mssbiQvS3ME4gDI3/lVv+cPFGL /aI2GSBfnw6ZKMMnmkGVZO1r+IykS5u3aHf65IYdMGISrFJSq90aU+vFiD0+KZn46N1v VfaA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1711044816; x=1711649616; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:references :in-reply-to:message-id:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rWQnoaNGoM6g3Y8+ZCFtXlAiCdEz9aXtDHKGEKH5S1g=; b=n7mM5tWbqNrsVJQBZgAgbgHnDFtTEMEMYxdDlHb3VhSpkUiwzkrLecCr9M6DRFuF4k Hv456N1uJYRuJaPmtrw6xuD1qXohD0EIMasrYS+ctK0g1dEPgodQdKI483eyv+6KbVF6 TFo6sGHSkqDoSTNygjJBmLfutWnpwYsVmvzIKCZpve6/KLzSKNX/V5De496L4qJJxNkk l8hlXxuDy4uXW47KcLJWreIQv6SH6o1L/jmaEb+ZVUd9A+39PC3H3Kx+ydgDyD4dwA9X O6GNYAmkAs88iWTMyl3DXsLAp8er/qKcsVEPEbXNDjNezk+cTZ/b0qGH6jZjRKhexLto zlhw== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXZiIKACAzXZYX87fWwpNlI+SsfBIBCeRoqIlBIvpC835TsnmxaIbsXlfZ11kk+rPN37/tBxUqyAmqcfvaweTYv9NE5+r35 X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyBDofV1upRrNjRbMwTvFZw2S1OwwMQXnaNHiRimVJaSCp70dTd SUheXqp1rESsDGVKBTd8IFNgl1GOwzk9wU3UXbDLgDlqDqSUOT0u X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHwZtJH/61IVzWoFrrIi603ZfpbR8Dz6mG4eAWWAUesKNpyD2VbAK52iKqKV5l0wKy88OxP7g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:4005:b0:692:494f:f0aa with SMTP id kd5-20020a056214400500b00692494ff0aamr558561qvb.9.1711044816613; Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (55.87.194.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.194.87.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q14-20020ad4574e000000b00690f9ea30aesm138943qvx.26.2024.03.21.11.13.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 21 Mar 2024 11:13:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 14:13:35 -0400 From: Willem de Bruijn To: Antoine Tenart , Willem de Bruijn , 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 Message-ID: <65fc78cfe99a2_25798a29475@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> In-Reply-To: <171104177952.222877.10664469615735463255@kwain> 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> <171104177952.222877.10664469615735463255@kwain> Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 3/4] udp: do not transition UDP fraglist to unnecessary checksum Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Antoine Tenart wrote: > Quoting Willem de Bruijn (2024-03-21 15:58:17) > > Antoine Tenart wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > > > 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. Oh yes, of course. > Except for CHECKSUM_PARTIAL, as we discussed. Because that is treated as equivalent to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY in the ingress path, and if forwarded to an egress path, csum_start and csum_off are set correctly. Also for all segs after segmentation. Okay, that sounds fine then. There are two cases here: csum_start points to the outer header or it points to the inner header. I suppose that does not matter for correctness post segmentation. > Does that make sense? Anything we can do to help moving this forward? > > Thanks! > Antoine