netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@pengutronix.de>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@gmail.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC] net: selftests: Adding TX checksum offload validation
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 11:12:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aMkp4vGilSPbAyun@pengutronix.de> (raw)

Hello everyone,

While working with the smsc95xx driver, I identified a need for better
validation of the driver and hardware TX checksum offloading capabilities. I
believe a generic test suite for this would benefit other drivers as well.

The generic selftest framework in net/core/selftests.c seems like the ideal
location. It already contains a test for the RX checksum path, so adding
validation for the TX path feels like a natural extension.

Here is the list of test cases I propose to add:
- TX csum offload, IPv4, TCP, Standard MTU Packet
- TX csum offload, IPv4, UDP, Standard MTU Packet
- TX csum offload, IPv4, ICMP, Standard Payload
- TX csum offload, IPv4, TCP, Minimal Size Packet (1-byte payload)
- TX csum offload, IPv4, UDP, Minimal Size Packet (1-byte payload)
- TX csum offload, IPv4, UDP, Zero-Checksum Payload (Verify checksum becomes
                              0xFFFF)
- TX csum offload, IPv4, TCP, With Single VLAN Tag
- TX csum offload, IPv4, TCP, With Double VLAN Tag (Q-in-Q)
- TX csum offload, IPv6, TCP, Standard MTU Packet
- TX csum offload, IPv6, UDP, Standard MTU Packet

The implementation for these tests would involve preparing an skb with the
corresponding L3/L4 headers, flagging it with CHECKSUM_PARTIAL, and sending it
through the PHY loopback. The test would pass if the received frame has a
valid checksum.

As a related question on driver implementation:
The documentation suggests that the older flags NETIF_F_IP_CSUM and
NETIF_F_IPV6_CSUM are being superseded by the more generic NETIF_F_HW_CSUM.
When the network stack sends a packet with skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_PARTIAL,
the driver is responsible for ensuring the final checksum is correct, either by
offloading the calculation to the device or by falling back to a software
function like skb_checksum_help().

Is this understanding correct, and is relying on CHECKSUM_PARTIAL as the
primary mechanism for requesting TX offload the recommended practice for modern
network drivers?

Thanks,
Oleksij
-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |

             reply	other threads:[~2025-09-16  9:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-09-16  9:12 Oleksij Rempel [this message]
2025-09-17 22:07 ` [RFC] net: selftests: Adding TX checksum offload validation Jakub Kicinski

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=aMkp4vGilSPbAyun@pengutronix.de \
    --to=o.rempel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=hkallweit1@gmail.com \
    --cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.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).