lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net] virtio-net: unbreak cusmed packet for small buffer XDP
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:40:30AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2017年06月28日 11:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:45:18AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2017年06月28日 10:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:14:34AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On 2017年06月28日 10:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 09:54:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > We should allow csumed packet for small buffer, otherwise XDP_PASS
> > > > > > > won't work correctly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fixes commit bb91accf2733 ("virtio-net: XDP support for small buffers")
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > > > > The issue would be VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_DATA_VALID might be set.
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > I think it's safe. For XDP_PASS, it work like in the past.
> > > > That's the part I don't get. With DATA_VALID csum in packet is wrong, XDP
> > > > tools assume it's value.
> > > DATA_VALID is CHECKSUM_UNCESSARY on the host, and according to the comment
> > > in skbuff.h
> > >
> > >
> > > "
> > > * The hardware you're dealing with doesn't calculate the full checksum
> > > * (as in CHECKSUM_COMPLETE), but it does parse headers and verify
> > > checksums
> > > * for specific protocols. For such packets it will set
> > > CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY
> > > * if their checksums are okay. skb->csum is still undefined in this case
> > > * though. A driver or device must never modify the checksum field in the
> > > * packet even if checksum is verified.
> > > "
> > >
> > > The csum is correct I believe?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > That's on input. But I think for tun it's output, where that is equivalent
> > to CHECKSUM_NONE
> >
> >
>
> Yes, but the comment said:
>
> "
> CKSUM_NONE:
> *
> * The skb was already checksummed by the protocol, or a checksum is not
> * required.
> *
> * CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY:
> *
> * This has the same meaning on as CHECKSUM_NONE for checksum offload on
> * output.
> *
> "
>
> So still correct I think?
>
> Thanks

Hmm maybe I mean NEEDS_CHECKSUM actually.

I'll need to re-read the spec.

--
MST

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-28 06:02    [W:0.044 / U:0.776 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site