From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:09:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id f126so105223451wma.1 for ; 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 To: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Cc: Akhil Goyal , 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: <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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 :)