From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 183317E72 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:11:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2014 05:12:56 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,724,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="619052307" Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.155]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Oct 2014 05:19:20 -0700 Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.66) by IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:18:43 +0100 Received: from irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.7.174]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.118]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:18:42 +0100 From: "Ananyev, Konstantin" To: "Dey, Souvik" , Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] FW: BUG in IP FRAGMENTATION Thread-Index: Ac/oZ0B22lKbfrCoTWKqR8L2bLPc9gAAKr1A///0WYCAAAgWgP//67AA Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:18:42 +0000 Message-ID: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725821393AEE@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <4B8F36DD0FB25E47B3DA6F493BF591B70DC5972B@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <471124659.68G021lYDz@xps13> <4B8F36DD0FB25E47B3DA6F493BF591B70DC597C1@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> In-Reply-To: <4B8F36DD0FB25E47B3DA6F493BF591B70DC597C1@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Patil, PraveenKumar" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] FW: BUG in IP FRAGMENTATION X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:11:42 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Dey, Souvik > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 12:53 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Patil, PraveenKumar > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] FW: BUG in IP FRAGMENTATION >=20 > We have not directly tried to use the 1.7 code with fragmentation apis, b= ut we did run through the 1.7 code and did not find any much > difference between 1.6 and 1.7 code. > I had wrongly mentioned out-of-order in my previous mail. Actually out-of= -order is working fine but we are facing issues with > overlapping and duplicate fragments. > In the 1.7 fragmentation code also in file ip_frag_internals.c , functio= n ip_frag_process we also see this comment >=20 > /* > * errorneous packet: either exceeed max allowed number of fragments, > * or duplicate first/last fragment encountered. > */ >=20 > Which indirectly suggest that the handling of duplicate first/last fragme= nt is taken as error. Same with overlapping fragment we could > not find any piece of code which will be doing it. Yes, that's right. If we encounter a duplicate and/or overlapping fragment we treat it as an = error. >=20 > -- > Regards, > Souvik >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 4:54 PM > To: Dey, Souvik > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Patil, PraveenKumar > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] FW: BUG in IP FRAGMENTATION >=20 > ME TOO, I HAVE A BUG WITH CAPS LOCK ;) >=20 > 2014-10-15 11:06, Dey, Souvik: > > In DPDK1.6 do we support overlapped fragments while doing reassembly. > > Also why we don't consider the first or last fragment to be out-of-orde= r. > > Are this known limitations in DPDK or they are not working due to some > > bugs in the code ? >=20 > Please test the latest version and explain how you see the bug. >=20 > Thanks > -- > Thomas