From: Andrew Rybchenko <andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
dev@dpdk.org
Cc: "Keith Wiles" <keith.wiles@intel.com>,
"Hongzhi Guo" <guohongzhi1@huawei.com>,
"Morten Brørup" <mb@smartsharesystems.com>,
"Thomas Monjalon" <thomas@monjalon.net>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] net: introduce functions to verify L4 checksums
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 13:23:33 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1c377463-9d2d-88ac-ef63-f0452fe8bd13@oktetlabs.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c84d8ed9-866f-9058-5e2e-556f76f62004@intel.com>
On 4/30/21 6:42 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 4/27/2021 2:57 PM, Olivier Matz wrote:
>> Since commit d5df2ae0428a ("net: fix unneeded replacement of TCP
>> checksum 0"), the functions rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum() and
>> rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum() can return either 0x0000 or 0xffff when used to
>> verify a packet containing a valid checksum.
>>
>> Since these functions should be used to calculate the checksum to set in
>> a packet, introduce 2 new helpers for checksum verification. They return
>> 0 if the checksum is valid in the packet.
>>
>> Use this new helper in net/tap driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c | 7 +-
>> lib/net/rte_ip.h | 124 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> 2 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>> index 71282e8065..b14d5a1d55 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/tap/rte_eth_tap.c
>> @@ -365,11 +365,12 @@ tap_verify_csum(struct rte_mbuf *mbuf)
>> return;
>> }
>> }
>> - cksum = rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(l3_hdr, l4_hdr);
>> + cksum_ok = !rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify(l3_hdr,
>> + l4_hdr);
>> } else { /* l3 == RTE_PTYPE_L3_IPV6, checked above */
>> - cksum = rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(l3_hdr, l4_hdr);
>> + cksum_ok = !rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum_verify(l3_hdr,
>> + l4_hdr);
>> }
>> - cksum_ok = (cksum == 0) || (cksum == 0xffff);
>> mbuf->ol_flags |= cksum_ok ?
>> PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD : PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD;
>> }
>> diff --git a/lib/net/rte_ip.h b/lib/net/rte_ip.h
>> index 8c189009b0..ef84bcc5bf 100644
>> --- a/lib/net/rte_ip.h
>> +++ b/lib/net/rte_ip.h
>> @@ -344,20 +344,10 @@ rte_ipv4_phdr_cksum(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, uint64_t ol_flags)
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> - * Process the IPv4 UDP or TCP checksum.
>> - *
>> - * The IP and layer 4 checksum must be set to 0 in the packet by
>> - * the caller.
>> - *
>> - * @param ipv4_hdr
>> - * The pointer to the contiguous IPv4 header.
>> - * @param l4_hdr
>> - * The pointer to the beginning of the L4 header.
>> - * @return
>> - * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet.
>> + * @internal Calculate the non-complemented IPv4 L4 checksum
>> */
>> static inline uint16_t
>> -rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, const void *l4_hdr)
>> +__rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, const void *l4_hdr)
>> {
>> uint32_t cksum;
>> uint32_t l3_len, l4_len;
>> @@ -374,16 +364,62 @@ rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, const void *l4_hdr)
>> cksum += rte_ipv4_phdr_cksum(ipv4_hdr, 0);
>>
>> cksum = ((cksum & 0xffff0000) >> 16) + (cksum & 0xffff);
>> - cksum = (~cksum) & 0xffff;
>> +
>> + return (uint16_t)cksum;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * Process the IPv4 UDP or TCP checksum.
>> + *
>> + * The IP and layer 4 checksum must be set to 0 in the packet by
>> + * the caller.
>> + *
>> + * @param ipv4_hdr
>> + * The pointer to the contiguous IPv4 header.
>> + * @param l4_hdr
>> + * The pointer to the beginning of the L4 header.
>> + * @return
>> + * The complemented checksum to set in the IP packet.
>> + */
>> +static inline uint16_t
>> +rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr, const void *l4_hdr)
>> +{
>> + uint16_t cksum = __rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(ipv4_hdr, l4_hdr);
>> +
>> + cksum = ~cksum;
>> +
>> /*
>> - * Per RFC 768:If the computed checksum is zero for UDP,
>> + * Per RFC 768: If the computed checksum is zero for UDP,
>> * it is transmitted as all ones
>> * (the equivalent in one's complement arithmetic).
>> */
>> if (cksum == 0 && ipv4_hdr->next_proto_id == IPPROTO_UDP)
>> cksum = 0xffff;
>>
>> - return (uint16_t)cksum;
>> + return cksum;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * Validate the IPv4 UDP or TCP checksum.
>> + *
>> + * @param ipv4_hdr
>> + * The pointer to the contiguous IPv4 header.
>> + * @param l4_hdr
>> + * The pointer to the beginning of the L4 header.
>> + * @return
>> + * Return 0 if the checksum is correct, else -1.
>> + */
>> +__rte_experimental
>> +static inline int
>> +rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify(const struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ipv4_hdr,
>> + const void *l4_hdr)
>> +{
>> + uint16_t cksum = __rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum(ipv4_hdr, l4_hdr);
>> +
>> + if (cksum != 0xffff)
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>
> There is behavior change in tap verify, I am asking just to verify if expected,
>
> Previously for UDP, if calculated checksum is '0', the 'rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum()'
> returns 0xFFFF.
> And 0xFFFF is taken as good checksum by tap PMD.
>
> With new 'rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify()', if calculated checksum is '0' it will
> be taken as bad checksum.
>
> I don't know if calculated checksum with valid checksum in place can return 0.
>
>
> Also for TCP, 'rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify()' doesn't have inversion (cksum =
> ~cksum;) seems changing pass/fail status of the checksum, unless I am not
> missing anything here.
Yes, it looks suspicious to me as well.
Olivier, could you clarify, please.
>> }
>>
>> /**
>> @@ -448,6 +484,25 @@ rte_ipv6_phdr_cksum(const struct rte_ipv6_hdr *ipv6_hdr, uint64_t ol_flags)
>> return __rte_raw_cksum_reduce(sum);
>> }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * @internal Calculate the non-complemented IPv4 L4 checksum
>> + */
>> +static inline uint16_t
>> +__rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(const struct rte_ipv6_hdr *ipv6_hdr, const void *l4_hdr)
>> +{
>> + uint32_t cksum;
>> + uint32_t l4_len;
>> +
>> + l4_len = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ipv6_hdr->payload_len);
>> +
>> + cksum = rte_raw_cksum(l4_hdr, l4_len);
>> + cksum += rte_ipv6_phdr_cksum(ipv6_hdr, 0);
>> +
>> + cksum = ((cksum & 0xffff0000) >> 16) + (cksum & 0xffff);
>> +
>> + return (uint16_t)cksum;
>> +}
>> +
>> /**
>> * Process the IPv6 UDP or TCP checksum.
>> *
>> @@ -464,16 +519,10 @@ rte_ipv6_phdr_cksum(const struct rte_ipv6_hdr *ipv6_hdr, uint64_t ol_flags)
>> static inline uint16_t
>> rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(const struct rte_ipv6_hdr *ipv6_hdr, const void *l4_hdr)
>> {
>> - uint32_t cksum;
>> - uint32_t l4_len;
>> -
>> - l4_len = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ipv6_hdr->payload_len);
>> + uint16_t cksum = __rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(ipv6_hdr, l4_hdr);
>>
>> - cksum = rte_raw_cksum(l4_hdr, l4_len);
>> - cksum += rte_ipv6_phdr_cksum(ipv6_hdr, 0);
>> + cksum = ~cksum;
>>
>> - cksum = ((cksum & 0xffff0000) >> 16) + (cksum & 0xffff);
>> - cksum = (~cksum) & 0xffff;
>> /*
>> * Per RFC 768: If the computed checksum is zero for UDP,
>> * it is transmitted as all ones
>> @@ -482,7 +531,34 @@ rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(const struct rte_ipv6_hdr *ipv6_hdr, const void *l4_hdr)
>> if (cksum == 0 && ipv6_hdr->proto == IPPROTO_UDP)
>> cksum = 0xffff;
>>
>> - return (uint16_t)cksum;
>> + return cksum;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * Validate the IPv6 UDP or TCP checksum.
>> + *
>> + * The function accepts a 0 checksum, since it can exceptionally happen. See 8.1
>> + * (Upper-Layer Checksums) in RFC 8200.
>> + *
>> + * @param ipv6_hdr
>> + * The pointer to the contiguous IPv6 header.
>> + * @param l4_hdr
>> + * The pointer to the beginning of the L4 header.
>> + * @return
>> + * Return 0 if the checksum is correct, else -1.
>> + */
>> +__rte_experimental
>> +static inline int
>> +rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum_verify(const struct rte_ipv6_hdr *ipv6_hdr,
>> + const void *l4_hdr)
>> +{
>> + uint16_t cksum;
>> +
>> + cksum = __rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum(ipv6_hdr, l4_hdr);
>> + if (cksum != 0xffff)
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> }
>
> Nitpicking but, 'rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_verify()' is almost same with this
> function ('rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum_verify()') but they have different line
> spacing, can be good to have similar syntax for both.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-08 10:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-27 13:57 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum Olivier Matz
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on IP options packets Olivier Matz
2021-04-30 14:48 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-stable] " Ferruh Yigit
2021-06-08 10:13 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 12:29 ` Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 12:34 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 12:49 ` Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 13:57 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-08 14:30 ` Olivier Matz
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on TCP packets Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 10:18 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] net: introduce functions to verify L4 checksums Olivier Matz
2021-04-27 15:02 ` Morten Brørup
2021-04-27 15:07 ` Morten Brørup
2021-04-28 12:21 ` Olivier Matz
2021-04-28 12:42 ` Morten Brørup
2021-04-30 15:42 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-06-08 10:23 ` Andrew Rybchenko [this message]
2021-06-08 12:29 ` Olivier Matz
2021-06-08 12:39 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2021-06-25 15:38 ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-04-27 13:57 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] test/cksum: new test for L3/L4 checksum API Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on IP options packets Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum flags on TCP packets Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] net: introduce functions to verify L4 checksums Olivier Matz
2021-06-30 13:51 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] test/cksum: new test for L3/L4 checksum API Olivier Matz
2021-07-01 9:28 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] net/tap: fix Rx cksum Andrew Rybchenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1c377463-9d2d-88ac-ef63-f0452fe8bd13@oktetlabs.ru \
--to=andrew.rybchenko@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
--cc=guohongzhi1@huawei.com \
--cc=keith.wiles@intel.com \
--cc=mb@smartsharesystems.com \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=thomas@monjalon.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).