From: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To: 'Vladimir Oltean' <olteanv@gmail.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: optimize skb_postpull_rcsum()
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 14:51:15 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7aa1271399664bb3ac453a7f4d64798e@AcuMS.aculab.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211202214009.5hm3diwom4qsbsjd@skbuf>
From: Vladimir Oltean
> Sent: 02 December 2021 21:40
>
> On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 08:58:46PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > > To me it looks like the strange part is that the checksum of the removed
> > > block (printed by me as "csum_partial(start, len, 0)" inside
> > > skb_postpull_rcsum()) is the same as the skb->csum itself.
> >
> > If you are removing all the bytes that made the original checksum
> > that will happen.
> > And that might be true for the packets you are building.
>
> Yes, I am not removing all the bytes that made up the original L2
> payload csum. Let me pull up the skb_dump from my original message:
>
> here is where the enetc saw the the "start" variable (old skb->data)
> beginning of the frame points here
> v v
> skb headroom: 00000040: 88 80 00 0a 00 33 9d 40 f0 41 01 80 00 00 08 0f
>
> OCELOT_TAG_LEN bytes into the frame,
> the real MAC header can be found
> v
> skb headroom: 00000050: 00 10 00 00 00 04 9f 05 f6 28 ba ae e4 b6 2c 3d
> skb headroom: 00000060: 08 00
> skb linear: 00000000: 45 00 00 54 27 ac 00 00 40 01 09 a8 c0 a8 64 03
> ^
> the skb_postpull_rcsum is called from "start"
> pointer until the first byte prior to this one
>
> skb linear: 00000010: c0 a8 64 01 00 00 10 e6 01 5c 00 04 49 30 a7 61
> skb linear: 00000020: 00 00 00 00 3d 55 01 00 00 00 00 00 10 11 12 13
> skb linear: 00000030: 14 15 16 17 18 19 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 1f 20 21 22 23
> skb linear: 00000040: 24 25 26 27 28 29 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f 30 31 32 33
> skb linear: 00000050: 34 35 36 37
>
> So skb_postpull_rcsum() is called from "skb headroom" offset 0x4e to
> offset 0x61 inclusive (0x61 - 0x4e + 1 = 20 == OCELOT_TAG_LEN).
>
> However as I understand it, the CHECKSUM_COMPLETE of this packet is
> calculated by enetc from "skb headroom" offset 0x4e and all the way
> until "skb linear" offset 0x53. So there is still a good chunk of packet
> to go. That's why it is still a mystery to me why the checksums would be
> equal
...
Possibly because the rest of the packet actually has a valid checksum
(ie 0xffff) that (somewhere) got reduced to 16 bits.
If the checksum of the header were then added, and later removed
you'd end up inverting ~0u.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-03 14:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-24 20:24 [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: small csum optimizations Eric Dumazet
2021-11-24 20:24 ` [PATCH net-next 1/2] gro: optimize skb_gro_postpull_rcsum() Eric Dumazet
2021-11-24 20:24 ` [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: optimize skb_postpull_rcsum() Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 9:41 ` David Laight
2021-11-25 13:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-25 14:29 ` David Laight
2021-12-02 13:10 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-12-02 14:51 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-12-02 16:29 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-12-02 19:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-12-02 20:37 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-12-02 21:07 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-12-02 20:40 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-12-02 20:58 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-12-02 20:58 ` David Laight
2021-12-02 21:40 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-12-03 14:51 ` David Laight [this message]
2021-12-03 14:57 ` David Laight
2021-12-03 16:14 ` Vladimir Oltean
2021-12-03 16:30 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-12-03 16:47 ` David Laight
2021-12-03 16:58 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-12-03 17:41 ` David Laight
2021-12-02 15:06 ` David Laight
2021-12-02 15:22 ` Eric Dumazet
2021-11-26 5:20 ` [PATCH net-next 0/2] net: small csum optimizations patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=7aa1271399664bb3ac453a7f4d64798e@AcuMS.aculab.com \
--to=david.laight@aculab.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olteanv@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).