From: Andrew Rybchenko <arybchenko@solarflare.com>
To: "N. Benes" <nbenes@eso.org>, dev <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Bug in IPv4 header checksum computation?
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 10:58:52 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <105860ec-b4b7-b045-05e0-6fb67bab237a@solarflare.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20190402075852.uR8GedTrDwXiRcwaUaLMxP4xip3bqxHwWPFQObslYhw@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <65744706-bc88-f144-f85e-1b0292402cff@eso.org>
Hi,
added more people in CC.
On 4/1/19 6:29 PM, N. Benes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wrote to the users list a bit more a week ago concerning the IPv4
> Header Checksum computation and received no comments on it yet:
>
> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/2019-March/004021.html
> https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/users/2019-March/004022.html
>
> I have the impression that the current implementation wrongly does a
> conditional final inversion of the computed sum. This is correct for
> e.g. UDP, but I think it is not for an IPv4 Header (header checksum is
> not optional).
>
> If it is a bug, this could result in a surprisingly high number of
> invalid/dropped IPv4 packets, when the checksum is calculated manually
> via the DPDK API (not NIC-offloaded) and the IPv4 header has an
> appropriate combination of values e.g. the IP Identification field.
I agree that it looks like a bug in DPDK. RFC 791 says nothing about
avoid zero value for IPv4 checksum.
Andrew.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-02 7:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-01 15:29 N. Benes
2019-04-01 15:29 ` N. Benes
2019-04-02 7:58 ` Andrew Rybchenko [this message]
2019-04-02 7:58 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-04-02 8:46 ` Olivier Matz
2019-04-02 8:46 ` Olivier Matz
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=105860ec-b4b7-b045-05e0-6fb67bab237a@solarflare.com \
--to=arybchenko@solarflare.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=nbenes@eso.org \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/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).