From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FD4A04AB for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:49:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779391D148; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:49:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC791D148; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 20:49:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63E33215B2; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:49:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 08 Nov 2019 14:49:22 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=hcGH/4zWiouVTLi1GEi2ObFvBKx/GrvG80qqECZqayw=; b=TQF9mPYTF0h+ t8DFNCCFG5XEiVkQYLnnWLrzqd2kcgxxev7nx3FGYJGXydmlv2ivuoq9msg2QohB Zk53v0Ya0mb04mO2lalRuFG8FVNypUmHhtk3Kt/MltN8IjLy2MDXVvjhoDCquxzT YEdR+YtjUQCtN7OVCTuWaAqjkfv8UVI= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=hcGH/4zWiouVTLi1GEi2ObFvBKx/GrvG80qqECZqa yw=; b=PFy6dyzQT+aFq/ZVLeTAVqB9Q086Kr9N/LxsczTcQBBvvyuWRXTBdvibo URqB74ALVKhU/bapAmJjHJv2alIJBZDiCiP5+6HiPoLlTEE9He6RTM4gmIEdZHQs afwcF7LeKW/bpUQeZY7CEdP6f8khucdvoFnTgQ2sZ+wWdUMGotps2GjylgpQ7I5/ nhKezUepBzjxUxdyFULZfi5Kj0C8uFsn8KVtyjoViXSNDFtANFTwUV8s7txehXRY 30GsJ/P+vH5qrD6/2oM4IOCwYvqerkgdM+s2jWRy9S47oX8SQi8L7z0SYD5QPDb1 Dks54EsN9XhQj20qwGP99HVWPo5Dg== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddvuddgudefvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefhvffufffkjghfggfgtgesthfuredttddtvdenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc fkphepjeejrddufeegrddvtdefrddukeegnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpeht hhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from xps.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net [77.134.203.184]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9EABF80060; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:49:20 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Kevin Traynor Cc: Xiao Zhang , dev@dpdk.org, beilei.xing@intel.com, qi.z.zhang@intel.com, ian.stokes@intel.com, stable@dpdk.org, Andrew Rybchenko , "Yigit, Ferruh" , Xiaolong Ye Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2019 20:49:18 +0100 Message-ID: <3103941.IzeQdVNKZZ@xps> In-Reply-To: <39c0da13-5bd4-8dd2-ac09-a6ef5c1e3380@redhat.com> References: <1571039632-5524-1-git-send-email-xiao.zhang@intel.com> <1572325942-72488-1-git-send-email-xiao.zhang@intel.com> <39c0da13-5bd4-8dd2-ac09-a6ef5c1e3380@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] [v3] net/i40e: fix vlan packets drop X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for DPDK stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: stable-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "stable" 08/11/2019 20:28, Kevin Traynor: > Hi Xiao, > > On 29/10/2019 05:12, Xiao Zhang wrote: > > VLAN packets with ip length bigger than 1496 will not be received by > > i40e/i40evf due to wrong packets size checking. This patch fixes the > > issue by correcting the maximum frame size during checking. > > > > Fixes: 43e5488c0ac6 ("net/i40e: support MTU configuration") > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > Signed-off-by: Xiao Zhang > > --- > > v3 > > Checking more places using max packet len. > > v2 > > Add fix for i40evf and correct the checking when using the max_pkt_len. > > --- > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev.c | 2 +- > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_ethdev_vf.c | 11 +++++++---- > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_fdir.c | 2 +- > > drivers/net/i40e/i40e_rxtx.c | 9 ++++++--- > > lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c | 10 ++++++++-- > > lib/librte_net/rte_ether.h | 1 + > > 6 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > > +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_ethdev.c > > @@ -1257,11 +1257,17 @@ rte_eth_dev_configure(uint16_t port_id, uint16_t nb_rx_q, uint16_t nb_tx_q, > > goto rollback; > > } > > } else { > > + /** > > + * The overhead from MTU to max frame size. > > + * Considering VLAN and QinQ packet, the VLAN tag size > > + * needs to be added to RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN. > > + */ > > if (dev_conf->rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len < RTE_ETHER_MIN_LEN || > > - dev_conf->rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len > RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN) > > + dev_conf->rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len > RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN > > + + RTE_ETHER_VLAN_LEN * 2) > > /* Use default value */ > > dev->data->dev_conf.rxmode.max_rx_pkt_len = > > - RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN; > > + RTE_ETHER_MAX_LEN + RTE_ETHER_VLAN_LEN * 2; > > +cc ethdev maintainers > > This looks ok to me for i40e case, but I don't know if there is a > consequence for other PMDs. It seems late to change this, so maybe you > can live without this part for now. > > Even on the i40e parts, there can be some subtle bug and I requested > i40e maintainers to review carefully but it has not happened, so for me > it shouldn't be merged at present. I would nack for another, simpler, reason: No ethdev behaviour change should be submitted if title does not start with "ethdev:" and if ethdev maintainers are not Cc'ed.