From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7F5A052A;
Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:41:03 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1E51DBE4;
Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:41:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail-wm1-f68.google.com (mail-wm1-f68.google.com
[209.85.128.68]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC0B1DA6E
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:41:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-wm1-f68.google.com with SMTP id j18so6431459wmi.3
for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind.com; s=google;
h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to
:user-agent; bh=Di4QZMeyLMfrwECrqAA+q3wXIOXqV0eHd9+iSAu1K0U=;
b=NXjTb9jWXrfX0rodgC/JVTb1TOrjC+XDx9iQxeA2Sn6lcESS08ui9bVT3sxcqgAWbR
iAgQcxTn+ykTFaGF0CT2iPKbAsx/lKngkBAjtV3i6iJ3bKtdCmOGEkcg/M1r6I+JjLon
eYuAzdVDYzIgRNJWsn6GKf21ma2Bq/r8l+l9Q6gq6d+xe672/k2PEH1U9jYukqPR+YYI
2kXU/JyySvfLOuHLHju0c0OjGAUvm4Ol8U5F+muP54QLOji2f21upKDWnBMk1ykL/WWJ
M7gvHGAbm4ndnEXRXsNcSsm1p9XdNnHsTdGYXJRv65Sm5NQykitIX/WA5fkpTdmGEoPk
L/NA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references
:mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding
:in-reply-to:user-agent;
bh=Di4QZMeyLMfrwECrqAA+q3wXIOXqV0eHd9+iSAu1K0U=;
b=kNfBxmrbxmAmMw2KFD3JBs7J3zWlYC5gbI/+ABHoRemhVMTljtTAUCEQjWwgEOmaAo
eLsVEe/oVbPCpKx9vLiFC7bMtHFYcLrEBUv+kX7lcf4bKzXptvufqzh7Uq8Na3iNJZ9o
BIEbz5jYv8Wj4/OzDiuGoJExg3K1X0kei/NzMwqtwFTsln5xbomJrBf4TejZHxJanUDL
EcgSFLy+lkoL/05P1yf2A2AHUwJObAv8h5tNQ5fasTlDI4xJHeQ1t26bx347duu18zrj
8ttflQ9UJHpA9bdHuSGrBLxyYxCPX/43WPQjFdU9wSpcBimEuQWQwUzMvz0t5PLmV6fe
npZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5315WYelqFv0sxBccK+ZSiNYtzasxPcFB4xcI8lsDGjBOeU9lt4S
xmRA8F97DPEIxl1fSBwWotDZJQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw1leo+sEd6biEH7cVnun1YMu1oGKkEZUeb4Q3i2LWFsZxq+0t3mfL1JL5AeYazNJBKiuh6hg==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7d85:: with SMTP id y127mr5624357wmc.181.1594392061087;
Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 6wind.com (2a01cb0c0005a600345636f7e65ed1a0.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr.
[2a01:cb0c:5:a600:3456:36f7:e65e:d1a0])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s203sm10462013wms.32.2020.07.10.07.41.00
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
Fri, 10 Jul 2020 07:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:40:59 +0200
From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Morten =?iso-8859-1?Q?Br=F8rup?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
Cc: Hongzhi Guo <guohongzhi1@huawei.com>, dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org,
stephen@networkplumber.org, thomas@monjalon.net,
konstantin.ananyev@intel.com, ferruh.yigit@intel.com,
nicolas.chautru@intel.com, zhoujingbin@huawei.com,
chenchanghu@huawei.com, jerry.lilijun@huawei.com, haifeng.lin@huawei.com
Message-ID: <20200710144059.GF5869@platinum>
References: <20200710065551.59352-1-guohongzhi1@huawei.com>
<20200710124109.GY5869@platinum>
<98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61118@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
<20200710131604.GB5869@platinum>
<98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C61119@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
<20200710134102.GC5869@platinum>
<98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C6111B@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35C6111B@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: fix unneeded replacement of 0 by ffff
for TCP checksum
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
<mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:56:11PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Matz
> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 3:41 PM
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:29:36PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 3:16 PM
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:10:34PM +0200, Morten Brørup wrote:
> > > > > > From: Olivier Matz [mailto:olivier.matz@6wind.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 2:41 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:55:51PM +0800, Hongzhi Guo wrote:
> > > > > > > Per RFC768:
> > > > > > > If the computed checksum is zero, it is transmitted as all
> > ones.
> > > > > > > An all zero transmitted checksum value means that the
> > transmitter
> > > > > > > generated no checksum.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > RFC793 for TCP has no such special treatment for the checksum
> > of
> > > > > > zero.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Fixes: 6006818cfb26 ("net: new checksum functions")
> > > > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hongzhi Guo <guohongzhi1@huawei.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > v2:
> > > > > > > * Fixed commit tile
> > > > > > > * Fixed the API comment
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> > > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h
> > b/lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h
> > > > > > > index 292f63fd7..d03c77120 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h
> > > > > > > @@ -325,7 +325,7 @@ rte_ipv4_phdr_cksum(const struct
> > rte_ipv4_hdr
> > > > > > *ipv4_hdr, uint64_t ol_flags)
> > > > > > > * The pointer to the beginning of the L4 header.
> > > > > > > * @return
> > > > > > > * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet
> > > > > > > - * or 0 on error
> > > > > > > + * or 0 if the IP length is invalid in the header.
> > > > > > > */
> > > > > > > static inline uint16_t
> > > > > > > rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr,
> > const
> > > > > > void *l4_hdr)
> > > > >
> > > > > 0 is a valid return value, so I suggest omitting it from the
> > return
> > > > value description:
> > > > >
> > > > > * @return
> > > > > - * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet
> > > > > - * or 0 on error
> > > > > + * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet.
> > > > >
> > > > > The comparison "if (l3_len < sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr))" is
> > only
> > > > there to protect against invalid input; it prevents l4_len from
> > > > becoming negative.
> > > >
> > > > I don't get why "0 if the IP length is invalid in the header"
> > should
> > > > be removed from the comment: 0 is both a valid return value and
> > > > the value returned on invalid packet.
> > >
> > > To avoid confusion. We do not want people to add error handling for a
> > return value of 0.
> > >
> > > 0 is not a special value or an error, so it does not deserve explicit
> > mentioning.
> > >
> > > If we want to mention the return value for garbage input, we should
> > not use the wording "or 0", because this suggests that 0 is not a
> > normal return value.
> >
> > Ok, got it.
> >
> > So maybe this?
> >
> > The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet. If
> > the IP length is invalid in the header, it returns 0.
> >
> It still mentions 0 as a special value, increasing the risk of the defensive user adding "error handling" for a return value of 0.
>
> How about this?
>
> The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet. If
> the IP length is invalid in the header, the return value
> is undefined.
After reading again your arguments, I think I prefer your first
proposal, which was also Hongzhi's initial submission:
- * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet
- * or 0 on error
+ * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet.
Thomas, do you want to to resubmit with this change?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > For the same reason, unlikely() should be added to this
> > comparison.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe yes, but that's another story I think.
> > >
> > > Agree. I was just mentioning it so it can be done when modifying the
> > function anyway.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Otherwise,
> > > > >
> > > > > Acked-by: Morten Brørup <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
> > > > >
> > >
>