From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35E91B5AA for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:37:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B483210FE; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:37:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:37:36 -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=in3i7Yap2YFsBomvgRImUndprJAetHDCOofRBW/lqzw=; b=bc6kVJ5NvGNK XNp++YQZJGauiT0MYZL/f04n8eT14nN6V4eEdzKlbYZXtFAE5r1zEC4BG7h4Ohvd mXY7VZ17dpcmVxMsrBkinNjevtndeON1RJ+B/K4elf0QjLKn1HrRL6VZMIddLFD0 97TfRzWh7iH1xoSvm/bgbOvxR/wMQek= 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=in3i7Yap2YFsBomvgRImUndprJAetHDCOofRBW/lq zw=; b=qeyen5/P6I8XX/TfmigauUe5oK3c1D0cjZ1WCdtv73beR3oX6k01SWAD/ Jm1TKDqPHH0txA/4MtPdKgCSsU3VJvbSZbgQGJ9au3xjcXdsGrDKQva4UoMOshOU h97UWbYl6lV8jlm1N59lwvBtuxROZog4tfG+sHzGIhdK6g7ugaxxIILWcSdumpUK ERGv2HuuauzRxTRZY7RCVsOZhlyBRIE93ks0gc+llUJPyZ2XDhiPJ21di6jwuBqp FEugCoYCt4UUucOX+dkXYnYxqHlEQe+19TEDoZc0O3WMzKhiJ1gsPjBsErFe3YXi wvc9K2ZyXqAp3oJTo6c7Zh/zu9g3g== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedtkedrudejtddgudehvdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfhuthenuceurghilhhouhhtmecu fedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvufffkf gjfhgggfgtsehtufertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefvhhhomhgrshcuofhonhhjrghlohhn uceothhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgrlhhonhdrnhgvtheqnecukfhppeejjedrudefgedrvd dtfedrudekgeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhohhmrghssehmohhnjhgr lhhonhdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt 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 AC463E4559; Wed, 19 Dec 2018 16:37:34 -0500 (EST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Chas Williams Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Chas Williams <3chas3@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 22:37:33 +0100 Message-ID: <1574497.3ne19FqZsX@xps> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258010D8BC664@IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20181127045613.16437-1-3chas3@gmail.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB977258010D8BC664@IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] ip_frag: fix ipv6 when MTU sizes not aligned to 8 bytes X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:37:37 -0000 > > The same issue was fixed on for the ipv4 version of this routine in > > commit 8d4d3a4f7337 ("ip_frag: handle MTU sizes not aligned to 8 bytes"). > > Briefly, the size of an ipv6 header is always 40 bytes. With an MTU of > > 1500, this will never produce a multiple of 8 bytes for the frag_size > > and this routine can never succeed. Since RTE_ASSERTS are disabled by > > default, this failure is tpyically ignored. > > > > To fix this, round down to the nearest 8 bytes and use this when > > producing the fragments. > > > > Fixes: 0aa31d7a5929 ("ip_frag: add IPv6 fragmentation support") > > > > Signed-off-by: Chas Williams > > Acked-by: Konstantin Ananyev Applied, thanks