From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DCCA2C6E
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:09:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id f126so105223451wma.1
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to
 :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=+RX0yH4NyLzrJotG5KeQQjc5vM1eYTMDsG751/zBsj8=;
 b=a8vYV8f0nWUTowF594YoAR52ymP6wuDqa05ElwupltCEVx1AS6KuyMTNUAuewpMgNR
 XViAIHgaNc2KBrr0OJk+hvSXStM5/iixrGvw3pPhDXJNwGAm7fng3fzmGPWN6vkP3OlC
 RAw7qwPMGxKScFE9vpVmy6kiTOjwvml4hNQI2IwBffpS2+9/DMO1dEb0cec05fIOqOmi
 sQP79dzb05L+twOTc1oZBQ9BKFOWDo4eXb3ot4m6AYtb5Zifg/UyPDLxZRE5O9MgSdpR
 Ch5SuJZySCMZ6NDjzYC+wd7yNyzGUuRriXkl79DQJCz0zxgGm8xflV3p7w5Hc9AGiel8
 T06w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent
 :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=+RX0yH4NyLzrJotG5KeQQjc5vM1eYTMDsG751/zBsj8=;
 b=bD8fQUCMdRJLwCSmgCrhFh3Oc8fDPrTlTkudMLG7ihWI929NDnxgQZMpXX5v5YxaUa
 gHRZLOPJ6PHDr9yD1dUVWBqtLzyKT/chJ7hcBJG9e8PDbgD+T6pcO9uy9K64aLVhi3Cs
 ttQ1aorT/p9u8MDgqtW7IiRQiX63PvcNvMKZETDY4yBZAdmRLyewHrgIlaP+buITLtqZ
 glA43B/no3dN1KR6pLXRxx8CZeMclgtfRHIZ+gsPthmkBG+7X8uLx0AN8T0fuCI5d9uJ
 feXMHpZwYeAY11lG6Y195Q7TsJnbXOj6c6cLQ6t1kE9EzsC3NbrC2uVAm3LHVmZFJ37y
 /mtQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJMg1kMkDhOvUG3IStFgy/fvhP1R/V2VjdEHGIGr1knPi488ZWyI/Urajs89OYUxEso
X-Received: by 10.28.69.14 with SMTP id s14mr38441557wma.49.1468850965267;
 Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p9sm1480003wjp.1.2016.07.18.07.09.24
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Mon, 18 Jul 2016 07:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy <sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com>
Cc: Akhil Goyal <akhil.goyal@nxp.com>, dev@dpdk.org
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:09:23 +0200
Message-ID: <11219047.piiXn93FtH@xps13>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <4ff03933-ba75-87d4-84ec-320160c0a60f@intel.com>
References: <DB3PR04MB1073850452F0411F413F395E6360@DB3PR04MB107.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <82bd976f-7482-924f-a50a-649bd63d4d65@nxp.com>
 <4ff03933-ba75-87d4-84ec-320160c0a60f@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] ip_chksum not updated in ipsec-secgw application
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:09:25 -0000

2016-07-18 14:57, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy:
> On 18/07/2016 14:53, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> > On 7/18/2016 6:50 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 2016-07-18 13:57, Sergio Gonzalez Monroy:
> >>> On 18/07/2016 13:41, Akhil Goyal wrote:
> >>>> In Ipsec-secgw application, while adding the outer IP header,
> >>>> it seems that the application does not update the checksum value
> >>>> for outbound packets. This result in incorrect ip->checksum in
> >>>> the encrypted packet.
> >> [...]
> >>>
> >>> It is intentional. The application is using IP checksum offload
> >>
> >> The correct behaviour is to have a software fallback (using rte_ip.h)
> >> for drivers which do not support checksum offload.
> >> But given it is just an example, it is normal to have this kind of
> >> constraint. However I think it should be explained in its doc.
> >> And a list of tested NICs would be nice to have.
> >>
> > Agreed. The driver that I was using did not enable checksum offload. 
> > It is good to have a fallback option.
> 
> That's a good point.
> So would it be enough to call out in the sample app guide that we use IP 
> checksum offload and
> show a warning in case the Driver does not support such offload?

Yes
and a list of tested NICs would make it perfect :)