From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0750CA0544 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:01:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1F87427F8; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:01:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1340C4069F; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:01:56 +0200 (CEST) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: fix checksum with unaligned buffer X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:01:50 +0200 Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87154@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [PATCH] net: fix checksum with unaligned buffer Thread-Index: AQHYgiaa5HfwvbWOiEyQ5g/wygBtSq1TTuaAgATMtJCAAAQg8IABVuVggAAFVwCAABAOAIAAFBGAgAFa5uCAADK3AIAAI7mAgAAOwgCAABrZ4A== References: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87139@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <20220617084505.62071-1-mb@smartsharesystems.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D8713A@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87141@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87145@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87148@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87152@smartserver.smartshare.dk> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= To: "Emil Berg" , "Bruce Richardson" Cc: "Stephen Hemminger" , , , , , X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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 > From: Emil Berg [mailto:emil.berg@ericsson.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2022 14.25 >=20 > > From: Morten Br=F8rup > > Sent: den 22 juni 2022 13:26 > > > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2022 11.18 > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Emil Berg wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > > Sent: den 21 juni 2022 11:35 > > > > > > > > > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2022 10.23 > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 10:05:15AM +0200, Morten Br=F8rup > wrote: > > > > > > > +TO: @Bruce and @Stephen: You signed off on the 16 bit > > > alignment > > > > > > requirement. We need background info on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Emil Berg [mailto:emil.berg@ericsson.com] > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2022 09.17 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > > > > > > Sent: den 20 juni 2022 12:58 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Emil Berg [mailto:emil.berg@ericsson.com] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, 20 June 2022 12.38 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: den 17 juni 2022 11:07 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:mb@smartsharesystems.com] > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, 17 June 2022 10.45 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With this patch, the checksum can be calculated > on > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > unligned > > > > > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > a packet buffer. > > > > > > > > > > > > I.e. the buf parameter is no longer required to > be > > > > > > > > > > > > 16 > > > bit > > > > > > > > aligned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The DPDK invariant that packet buffers must be = 16 > > > > > > > > > > > > bit > > > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > > > remains > > > > > > > > > > > > unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > > > This invariant also defines how to calculate the > 16 > > > bit > > > > > > > > checksum > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > unaligned part of a packet buffer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bugzilla ID: 1035 > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > lib/net/rte_ip.h | 17 +++++++++++++++-- > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 = deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/net/rte_ip.h b/lib/net/rte_ip.h > > > index > > > > > > > > > > > > b502481670..8e301d9c26 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/net/rte_ip.h > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/net/rte_ip.h > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -162,9 +162,22 @@ __rte_raw_cksum(const void > > > > > > > > > > > > *buf, > > > > > > size_t > > > > > > > > len, > > > > > > > > > > > > uint32_t sum) { > > > > > > > > > > > > /* extend strict-aliasing rules */ > > > > > > > > > > > > typedef uint16_t > > __attribute__((__may_alias__)) > > > > > > u16_p; > > > > > > > > > > > > - const u16_p *u16_buf =3D (const u16_p *)buf; > > > > > > > > > > > > - const u16_p *end =3D u16_buf + len / > > > sizeof(*u16_buf); > > > > > > > > > > > > + const u16_p *u16_buf; > > > > > > > > > > > > + const u16_p *end; > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* if buffer is unaligned, keeping it byte > > > order > > > > > > > > independent */ > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (unlikely((uintptr_t)buf & 1)) { > > > > > > > > > > > > + uint16_t first =3D 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (unlikely(len =3D=3D 0)) > > > > > > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > + ((unsigned char *)&first)[1] =3D > > *(const > > > unsigned > > > > > > > > > > > char *)buf; > > > > > > > > > > > > + sum +=3D first; > > > > > > > > > > > > + buf =3D (const void *)((uintptr_t)buf > > + 1); > > > > > > > > > > > > + len--; > > > > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + u16_buf =3D (const u16_p *)buf; > > > > > > > > > > > > + end =3D u16_buf + len / sizeof(*u16_buf); > > > > > > > > > > > > for (; u16_buf !=3D end; ++u16_buf) > > > > > > > > > > > > sum +=3D *u16_buf; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.17.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Emil, can you please test this patch with an > > > > > > > > > > > unaligned > > > > > > buffer on > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > application to confirm that it produces the > expected > > > result. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tested the patch. It doesn't seem to produce the > same > > > > > > results. I > > > > > > > > > > think the problem is that it always starts summing > from > > > an > > > > > > > > > > even address, the sum should always start from the > first > > > byte > > > > > > according > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > the checksum specification. Can I instead propose > > > something > > > > > > Mattias > > > > > > > > > > R=F6nnblom sent me? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I assume that it produces the same result when the > "buf" > > > > > > parameter is > > > > > > > > > aligned? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And when the "buf" parameter is unaligned, I don't > expect > > > it to > > > > > > > > produce the > > > > > > > > > same results as the simple algorithm! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the whole point of the patch: I expect the > > > > > > > > > overall > > > > > > packet > > > > > > > > buffer to > > > > > > > > > be 16 bit aligned, and the checksum to be a partial > > > checksum of > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > a 16 bit > > > > > > > > > aligned packet buffer. When calling this function, I > > > > > > > > > assume > > > that > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > "buf" and > > > > > > > > > "len" parameters point to a part of such a packet > buffer. > > > If > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > expectations are correct, the simple algorithm will > > > > > > > > > produce > > > > > > incorrect > > > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > > when "buf" is unaligned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was asking you to test if the checksum on the packet > is > > > > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > when your > > > > > > > > > application modifies an unaligned part of the packet > and > > > uses > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > function to > > > > > > > > > update the checksum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I understand your use case. Your use case seems to = be > > > about > > > > > > partial > > > > > > > > checksums, of which some partial checksums may start on > > > unaligned > > > > > > > > addresses in an otherwise aligned packet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our use case is about calculating the full checksum on a > > > nested > > > > > > packet. > > > > > > > > That nested packet may start on unaligned addresses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference is basically if we want to sum over > aligned > > > > > > addresses or > > > > > > > > not, handling the heading and trailing bytes > appropriately. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your method does not work in our case since we want to > treat > > > the > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > two bytes as the first word in our case. But I do > understand > > > that > > > > > > both > > > > > > > > methods are useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that certainly are two different use cases, requiring > two > > > > > > different ways of calculating the 16 bit checksum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that your method breaks the API. Previously > (assuming > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > crashing > > > > > > > > due to low optimization levels, more accepting hardware, > or > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > compiler (version)) the current method would calculate > the > > > > > > > > checksum assuming the first two bytes is the first word. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depending on the point of view, my patch either fixes a = bug > > > (where > > > > > > the checksum was calculated incorrectly when the buf pointer > was > > > > > > unaligned) or breaks the API (by calculating the differently > > > > > > when > > > the > > > > > > buffer is unaligned). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I cannot say with certainty which one is correct, but > perhaps > > > some > > > > > > > of > > > > > > the people with a deeper DPDK track record can... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Bruce and @Stephen, in 2019 you signed off on a patch [1] > > > > > > introducing a 16 bit alignment requirement to the Ethernet > > > address > > > > > > structure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is my understanding that DPDK has an invariant = requiring > > > packets > > > > > > to be 16 bit aligned, which that patch supports. Is this > > > invariant > > > > > > documented anywhere, or am I completely wrong? If I'm wrong, > > > > > > then > > > the > > > > > > alignment requirement introduced in that patch needs to be > > > removed, as > > > > > > well as any similar alignment requirements elsewhere in = DPDK. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe it is explicitly documented as a global > > > invariant, but > > > > > > I think it should be unless there is a definite case where = we > > > need to > > > > > > allow packets to be completely unaligned. Across all packet > > > headers we > > > > > > looked at, there was no tunneling protocol where the > resulting > > > packet > > > > > > was left unaligned. > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, if there are real use cases where we need to = allow > > > packets > > > > > > to start at an unaligned address, then I agree with you that > we > > > need > > > > > > to roll back the patch and work to ensure everything works > with > > > > > > unaligned addresses. > > > > > > > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Emil, can you please describe or refer to which tunneling > > > > > protocol > > > you are > > > > > using, where the nested packet can be unaligned? > > > > > > > > > > I am asking to determine if your use case is exotic (maybe = some > > > Ericsson > > > > > proprietary protocol), or more generic (rooted in some = standard > > > protocol). > > > > > This information affects the DPDK community's opinion about = how > it > > > should > > > > > be supported by DPDK. > > > > > > > > > > If possible, please provide more details about the tunneling > > > protocol and > > > > > nested packets... E.g. do the nested packets also contain = Layer > 2 > > > (Ethernet, > > > > > VLAN, etc.) headers, or only Layer 3 (IP) or Layer 4 (TCP, = UDP, > > > etc.)? And how > > > > > about ARP packets and Layer 2 control protocol packets (STP, > LACP, > > > etc.)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if you append or adjust an odd number of bytes (e.g. a = PDCP > > > header) from a previously aligned payload the entire packet will > then > > > be unaligned. > > > > > > > > > > If PDCP headers can leave the rest of the packet field unaligned, > then > > > we had better remove the alignment restrictions through all of > DPDK. > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > Re-reading the details regarding unaligned pointers in C11, as = posted > by Emil > > in Bugzilla [2], I interpret it as follows: Any 16 bit or wider > pointer type a must > > point to data aligned with that type, i.e. a pointer of the type > "uint16_t *" > > must point to 16 bit aligned data, and a pointer of the type > "uint64_t *" must > > point to 64 bit aligned data. Please, someone tell me I got this > wrong, and > > wake me up from my nightmare! > > > > Updating DPDK's packet structures to fully support this C11 > limitation with > > unaligned access would be a nightmare, as we would need to use byte > arrays > > for all structure fields. Functions would also be unable to use = other > pointer > > types than "void *" and "char *", which seems to be the actual > problem in > > the __rte_raw_cksum() function. I guess that it also would prevent > the > > compiler from auto-vectorizing the functions. > > > > I am usually a big proponent of academically correct solutions, but > such a > > change would be too wide ranging, so I would like to narrow it down > to the > > actual use case, and perhaps extrapolate a bit from there. > > > > @Emil: Do you only need to calculate the checksum of the = (potentially > > unaligned) embedded packet? Or do you also need to use other DPDK > > functions with the embedded packet, potentially accessing it at an > unaligned > > address? > > > > I'm trying to determine the scope of this C11 pointer alignment > limitation for > > your use case, i.e. whether or not other DPDK functions need to be > updated > > to support unaligned packet access too. > > > > [2] = https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=3D31323334-501cfaf3-313273af- > > 454445554331-2ffe58e5caaeb74e&q=3D1&e=3D3f0544d3-8a71-4676-b4f9- > > 27e0952f7de0&u=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fbugs.dpdk.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid% > > 3D1035 >=20 > That's my interpretation of the standard as well; For example an > uint16_t* must be on even addresses. If not it is undefined behavior. = I > think this is a bigger problem on ARM for example. >=20 > Without being that invested in dpdk, adding unaligned support for > everything seems like a steep step, but I'm not sure what it entails = in > practice. >=20 > We are actually only interested in the checksumming. Great! Then we can cancel the panic about rewriting DPDK Core = completely. Although it might still need some review for similar = alignment bugs, where we have been forcing the compiler shut up when = trying to warn us. :-) I have provided v3 of the patch, which should do as requested - and = still allow the compiler to auto-vectorize. @Emil, will you please test v3 of the patch?