patches for DPDK stable branches
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix fragmenting IPv4 fragment
       [not found] <1632737174-86870-1-git-send-email-caihc1@chinatelecom.cn>
@ 2021-10-09  7:27 ` huichao cai
  2021-10-12 10:16   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: huichao cai @ 2021-10-09  7:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dev; +Cc: konstantin.ananyev, stable

Current implementation of rte_ipv4_fragment_packet() doesn’t take
into account offset and flag values of the given packet, but blindly
assumes they are always zero (original packet is not fragmented).
According to RFC791, fragment and flag values for new fragment
should take into account values provided in the original IPv4 packet.

Fixes: 4c38e5532a07 ("ip_frag: refactor IPv4 fragmentation into a proper library")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: huichao cai <chcchc88@163.com>
---
v2:
* Reword commit message.

 lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c b/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
index 2e7739d..fead5a9 100644
--- a/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
+++ b/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static inline void __free_fragments(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t num)
 	uint32_t out_pkt_pos, in_seg_data_pos;
 	uint32_t more_in_segs;
 	uint16_t fragment_offset, flag_offset, frag_size, header_len;
-	uint16_t frag_bytes_remaining;
+	uint16_t frag_bytes_remaining, not_last_frag;
 
 	/*
 	 * Formal parameter checking.
@@ -116,7 +116,9 @@ static inline void __free_fragments(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t num)
 	in_seg = pkt_in;
 	in_seg_data_pos = header_len;
 	out_pkt_pos = 0;
-	fragment_offset = 0;
+	fragment_offset = (uint16_t)((flag_offset &
+	    RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_MASK) << RTE_IPV4_HDR_FO_SHIFT);
+	not_last_frag = (uint16_t)(flag_offset & IPV4_HDR_MF_MASK);
 
 	more_in_segs = 1;
 	while (likely(more_in_segs)) {
@@ -186,7 +188,8 @@ static inline void __free_fragments(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t num)
 
 		__fill_ipv4hdr_frag(out_hdr, in_hdr, header_len,
 		    (uint16_t)out_pkt->pkt_len,
-		    flag_offset, fragment_offset, more_in_segs);
+		    flag_offset, fragment_offset,
+		    not_last_frag || more_in_segs);
 
 		fragment_offset = (uint16_t)(fragment_offset +
 		    out_pkt->pkt_len - header_len);
-- 
1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix fragmenting IPv4 fragment
  2021-10-09  7:27 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix fragmenting IPv4 fragment huichao cai
@ 2021-10-12 10:16   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
  2021-10-13  6:53     ` 蔡慧超
  2021-10-14  6:51     ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Thomas Monjalon
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ananyev, Konstantin @ 2021-10-12 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: huichao cai, dev; +Cc: stable


> 
> Current implementation of rte_ipv4_fragment_packet() doesn’t take
> into account offset and flag values of the given packet, but blindly
> assumes they are always zero (original packet is not fragmented).
> According to RFC791, fragment and flag values for new fragment
> should take into account values provided in the original IPv4 packet.
> 
> Fixes: 4c38e5532a07 ("ip_frag: refactor IPv4 fragmentation into a proper library")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> 
> Signed-off-by: huichao cai <chcchc88@163.com>
> ---
> v2:
> * Reword commit message.
> 
>  lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c | 9 ++++++---
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c b/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
> index 2e7739d..fead5a9 100644
> --- a/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
> +++ b/lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
> @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ static inline void __free_fragments(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t num)
>  	uint32_t out_pkt_pos, in_seg_data_pos;
>  	uint32_t more_in_segs;
>  	uint16_t fragment_offset, flag_offset, frag_size, header_len;
> -	uint16_t frag_bytes_remaining;
> +	uint16_t frag_bytes_remaining, not_last_frag;
> 
>  	/*
>  	 * Formal parameter checking.
> @@ -116,7 +116,9 @@ static inline void __free_fragments(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t num)
>  	in_seg = pkt_in;
>  	in_seg_data_pos = header_len;
>  	out_pkt_pos = 0;
> -	fragment_offset = 0;
> +	fragment_offset = (uint16_t)((flag_offset &
> +	    RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_MASK) << RTE_IPV4_HDR_FO_SHIFT);
> +	not_last_frag = (uint16_t)(flag_offset & IPV4_HDR_MF_MASK);
> 
>  	more_in_segs = 1;
>  	while (likely(more_in_segs)) {
> @@ -186,7 +188,8 @@ static inline void __free_fragments(struct rte_mbuf *mb[], uint32_t num)
> 
>  		__fill_ipv4hdr_frag(out_hdr, in_hdr, header_len,
>  		    (uint16_t)out_pkt->pkt_len,
> -		    flag_offset, fragment_offset, more_in_segs);
> +		    flag_offset, fragment_offset,
> +		    not_last_frag || more_in_segs);
> 
>  		fragment_offset = (uint16_t)(fragment_offset +
>  		    out_pkt->pkt_len - header_len);
> --

Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>

> 1.8.3.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix fragmenting IPv4 fragment
  2021-10-12 10:16   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
@ 2021-10-13  6:53     ` 蔡慧超
  2021-10-13  9:12       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
  2021-10-14  6:51     ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Thomas Monjalon
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: 蔡慧超 @ 2021-10-13  6:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ananyev, Konstantin; +Cc: dev, stable

Hi,Konstantin


I'm glad to receive your ack!


Follow the documentation 《Contributing Code to DPDK》:
1.Update Patchwork to mark your previous patches as “Superseded”.
--Who is responsible for this update, I just tried, prompt no permission update(
You don't have permissions to edit patch 'ip_frag: modify the fragment offset and mf').


2.Note: When acking patches please remove as much of the text of the patch email as possible. 
It is generally best to delete everything after the Signed-off-by: line.
--Does this require me to send another patch email?And the content is like this:


Current implementation of rte_ipv4_fragment_packet() doesn’t take
into account offset and flag values of the given packet, but blindly
assumes they are always zero (original packet is not fragmented).
According to RFC791, fragment and flag values for new fragment
should take into account values provided in the original IPv4 packet.


Fixes: 4c38e5532a07 ("ip_frag: refactor IPv4 fragmentation into a proper library")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org


Signed-off-by: huichao cai <chcchc88@163.com>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
---
v2:(delete)
* Reword commit message.(delete)


 lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


Best regards.
Kevin

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix fragmenting IPv4 fragment
  2021-10-13  6:53     ` 蔡慧超
@ 2021-10-13  9:12       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
  2021-10-13  9:50         ` 蔡慧超
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ananyev, Konstantin @ 2021-10-13  9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 蔡慧超; +Cc: dev, stable

Hi Kevin,

AFAIK, no other action from your side is needed at the moment.
Now it is up to other reviewers (if any) to have a look,
and then DPDK maintainers to bring your patch in.
If they will have more comments/questions about the patch -
they will email you.
Meanwhile, as I said before, it would be really good to add a new
test-case to cover that case. It could be a new separate patch on top
of current one.

Konstantin

From: 蔡慧超 <chcchc88@163.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 7:53 AM
To: Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org; stable@dpdk.org
Subject: Re:RE: [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix fragmenting IPv4 fragment

Hi,Konstantin

I'm glad to receive your ack!

Follow the documentation 《Contributing Code to DPDK》:
1.Update Patchwork to mark your previous patches as “Superseded”.
--Who is responsible for this update, I just tried, prompt no permission update(
You don't have permissions to edit patch 'ip_frag: modify the fragment offset and mf').

2.Note: When acking patches please remove as much of the text of the patch email as possible.
It is generally best to delete everything after the Signed-off-by: line.
--Does this require me to send another patch email?And the content is like this:

Current implementation of rte_ipv4_fragment_packet() doesn’t take
into account offset and flag values of the given packet, but blindly
assumes they are always zero (original packet is not fragmented).
According to RFC791, fragment and flag values for new fragment
should take into account values provided in the original IPv4 packet.

Fixes: 4c38e5532a07 ("ip_frag: refactor IPv4 fragmentation into a proper library")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org<mailto:stable@dpdk.org>

Signed-off-by: huichao cai <chcchc88@163.com<mailto:chcchc88@163.com>>
Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com<mailto:konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>>
---
v2:(delete)
* Reword commit message.(delete)

 lib/ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c | 9 ++++++---
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Best regards.
Kevin




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix fragmenting IPv4 fragment
  2021-10-13  9:12       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
@ 2021-10-13  9:50         ` 蔡慧超
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: 蔡慧超 @ 2021-10-13  9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ananyev, Konstantin; +Cc: dev, stable

Hi,Konstantin


Meanwhile, as I said before, it would be really good to add a new

test-case to cover that case. It could be a new separate patch on top

of current one.
--Ok,I will.


Kevin

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix fragmenting IPv4 fragment
  2021-10-12 10:16   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
  2021-10-13  6:53     ` 蔡慧超
@ 2021-10-14  6:51     ` Thomas Monjalon
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Monjalon @ 2021-10-14  6:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: huichao cai; +Cc: dev, stable, Ananyev, Konstantin

> > Current implementation of rte_ipv4_fragment_packet() doesn’t take
> > into account offset and flag values of the given packet, but blindly
> > assumes they are always zero (original packet is not fragmented).
> > According to RFC791, fragment and flag values for new fragment
> > should take into account values provided in the original IPv4 packet.
> > 
> > Fixes: 4c38e5532a07 ("ip_frag: refactor IPv4 fragmentation into a proper library")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: huichao cai <chcchc88@163.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>

Applied, thanks.





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-10-14  6:51 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <1632737174-86870-1-git-send-email-caihc1@chinatelecom.cn>
2021-10-09  7:27 ` [dpdk-stable] [PATCH v2] ip_frag: fix fragmenting IPv4 fragment huichao cai
2021-10-12 10:16   ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-13  6:53     ` 蔡慧超
2021-10-13  9:12       ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2021-10-13  9:50         ` 蔡慧超
2021-10-14  6:51     ` [dpdk-stable] [dpdk-dev] " Thomas Monjalon

patches for DPDK stable branches

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/stable/0 stable/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 stable stable/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/stable \
		stable@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index stable

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.stable


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git