From: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: "Morten Brørup" <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
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: fix unneeded replacement of 0 by ffff for TCP checksum
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:52:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200710145231.GG5869@platinum> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200710144059.GF5869@platinum>
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 04:40:59PM +0200, Olivier Matz wrote:
> 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?
Sorry, I meant "do you want me to resubmit?"
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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>
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-10 14:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-10 6:55 Hongzhi Guo
2020-07-10 12:41 ` Olivier Matz
2020-07-10 13:10 ` Morten Brørup
2020-07-10 13:16 ` Olivier Matz
2020-07-10 13:29 ` Morten Brørup
2020-07-10 13:41 ` Olivier Matz
2020-07-10 13:56 ` Morten Brørup
2020-07-10 14:40 ` Olivier Matz
2020-07-10 14:52 ` Olivier Matz [this message]
2020-07-10 21:03 ` Thomas Monjalon
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=20200710145231.GG5869@platinum \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=chenchanghu@huawei.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=guohongzhi1@huawei.com \
--cc=haifeng.lin@huawei.com \
--cc=jerry.lilijun@huawei.com \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=nicolas.chautru@intel.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=zhoujingbin@huawei.com \
/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).