From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
To: Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>,
Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
"Kulasek, TomaszX" <tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>,
"stable@dpdk.org" <stable@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: fix the way how L4 checksum choice is tested
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 12:01:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725801689E3F36@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190529173337.31157-1-ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 12:52 PM
> To: 'Ivan Malov' <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>; Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Kulasek, TomaszX <tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] net: fix the way how L4 checksum choice is tested
>
>
> > The API to prepare checksum offloads mistreats L4
> > checksum type enum values as self-contained flags.
> >
> > Turning these flag checks into enum checks causes
> > warnings by GCC about possibly uninitialised IPv4
> > header pointer. The issue was found to show up in
> > the case of GCC versions 4.8.5 and 5.4.0, however,
> > it might be the case for a wider variety of other
> > versions. As GCC version 7.4.0 is not susceptible
> > to the said false positive assessment, this patch
> > maintains a compiler barrier for earlier versions.
> >
> > Fixes: 4fb7e803eb1a ("ethdev: add Tx preparation")
> > Cc: Tomasz Kulasek <tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com>
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ivan Malov <ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru>
> > ---
> > lib/librte_net/rte_net.h | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h b/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h
> > index 7088584..fb09431 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_net/rte_net.h
> > @@ -151,7 +151,19 @@ uint32_t rte_net_get_ptype(const struct rte_mbuf *m,
> > ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum = 0;
> > }
> >
>
> As I remember, saw something similar before...
> Probably the eaiser way to overcome it, is just to always initialize ipv4_hdr above,
> something like:
>
> +ipv4_hdr = NULL;
> if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {
> ipv4_hdr = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(m, struct rte_ipv4_hdr *,
> inner_l3_offset);
>
> if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IP_CKSUM)
> ipv4_hdr->hdr_checksum = 0;
> }
As another possible option always initialisze both, and then use either one or another,
depending on flags:
ipv4_hdr = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(m, struct rte_ipv4_hdr *, inner_l3_offset);
ipv6_hdr = rte_pktmbuf_mtod_offset(m, struct rte_ipv6_hdr *, inner_l3_offset);
....
>
>
> > - if ((ol_flags & PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM) == PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM) {
> > +#ifdef GCC_VERSION
> > +#if GCC_VERSION < 70400
> > + /*
> > + * Earlier versions of GCC suspect access to possibly
> > + * uninitialised ipv4_hdr in the code below, although
> > + * the said variable is properly initialised above.
> > + * Use compiler barrier to cope with the problem.
> > + */
> > + rte_compiler_barrier();
> > +#endif
> > +#endif
> > +
> > + if ((ol_flags & PKT_TX_L4_MASK) == PKT_TX_UDP_CKSUM) {
> > if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {
> > udp_hdr = (struct rte_udp_hdr *)((char *)ipv4_hdr +
> > m->l3_len);
> > @@ -167,7 +179,7 @@ uint32_t rte_net_get_ptype(const struct rte_mbuf *m,
> > udp_hdr->dgram_cksum = rte_ipv6_phdr_cksum(ipv6_hdr,
> > ol_flags);
> > }
> > - } else if ((ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM) ||
> > + } else if ((ol_flags & PKT_TX_L4_MASK) == PKT_TX_TCP_CKSUM ||
> > (ol_flags & PKT_TX_TCP_SEG)) {
> > if (ol_flags & PKT_TX_IPV4) {
> > /* non-TSO tcp or TSO */
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-24 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-29 17:33 Ivan Malov
2019-06-24 11:52 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-06-24 12:01 ` Ananyev, Konstantin [this message]
2019-06-24 12:16 ` Andrew Rybchenko
2019-06-27 13:26 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-06-27 21:52 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " Ivan Malov
2019-06-28 0:10 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-06-28 3:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Ivan Malov
2019-06-28 4:26 ` Stephen Hemminger
2019-06-28 10:47 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2019-06-28 16:24 ` Ferruh Yigit
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=2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725801689E3F36@IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com \
--to=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ivan.malov@oktetlabs.ru \
--cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=stable@dpdk.org \
--cc=tomaszx.kulasek@intel.com \
/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).