From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D00BC3237 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:25:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2016 07:25:49 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,384,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="848391419" Received: from smonroyx-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.12]) ([10.237.221.12]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2016 07:25:47 -0700 To: Thomas Monjalon References: <82bd976f-7482-924f-a50a-649bd63d4d65@nxp.com> <4ff03933-ba75-87d4-84ec-320160c0a60f@intel.com> <11219047.piiXn93FtH@xps13> Cc: Akhil Goyal , dev@dpdk.org From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Message-ID: <4f83b6a7-08ae-f1c1-9efc-e9798bba355e@intel.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:25:47 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <11219047.piiXn93FtH@xps13> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 14:25:50 -0000 On 18/07/2016 15:09, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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 :) There is no mention of specific tested hardware in the example guides, is there? I would prefer to just point to doc/guides/nics/overview.rst to check if the NIC supports IP checksum offload and in the application itself check for such capability and display a warning in case it is not supported. Sergio