From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8D3F2C07 for ; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 15:57:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2016 06:57:59 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,384,1464678000"; d="scan'208";a="997467309" Received: from smonroyx-mobl.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.237.221.12]) ([10.237.221.12]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2016 06:57:56 -0700 To: Akhil Goyal , Thomas Monjalon References: <61dc3eb1-2522-78f5-871d-442d473ab69d@intel.com> <3199592.SCxHWQF8fy@xps13> <82bd976f-7482-924f-a50a-649bd63d4d65@nxp.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org From: Sergio Gonzalez Monroy Message-ID: <4ff03933-ba75-87d4-84ec-320160c0a60f@intel.com> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 14:57:56 +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: <82bd976f-7482-924f-a50a-649bd63d4d65@nxp.com> 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 13:57:59 -0000 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? Sergio