From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from p01c12o144.mxlogic.net (p01c12o144.mxlogic.net [208.65.145.67]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3299212 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:44:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from unknown [66.151.187.12] (EHLO smtp.sonusnet.com) by p01c12o144.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-8.2.0-0) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id b006e345.0.46564.00-392.116751.p01c12o144.mxlogic.net (envelope-from ); Wed, 15 Oct 2014 05:52:45 -0600 (MDT) X-MXL-Hash: 543e600d575e83c3-ff3a22a598745b5230ee0f410cadc86786f00a1c Received: from INBA-HUB02.sonusnet.com (10.70.51.87) by psmwsonshc02.sonusnet.com (10.176.20.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 07:52:42 -0400 Received: from INBA-MAIL02.sonusnet.com ([10.70.51.89]) by inba-hub02.sonusnet.com ([fe80::80b9:dc60:caf7:7dfc%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0181.006; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 17:22:40 +0530 From: "Dey, Souvik" To: Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] FW: BUG in IP FRAGMENTATION Thread-Index: Ac/oZ0B22lKbfrCoTWKqR8L2bLPc9gAAKr1A//+o6YD//6G94A== Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:52:39 +0000 Message-ID: <4B8F36DD0FB25E47B3DA6F493BF591B70DC597C1@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> References: <4B8F36DD0FB25E47B3DA6F493BF591B70DC5972B@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <471124659.68G021lYDz@xps13> In-Reply-To: <471124659.68G021lYDz@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.70.54.43] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.1 cv=asamCEpV c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=OF4WD78bns2OWLoCgEPmtw==] X-AnalysisOut: [:117 a=OF4WD78bns2OWLoCgEPmtw==:17 a=URNJFqk9g_oA:10 a=4Rb] X-AnalysisOut: [SuBE0YzsA:10 a=BLceEmwcHowA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=xqWC_Br] X-AnalysisOut: [6kY4A:10 a=kUVcWBOSAAAA:8 a=YlVTAMxIAAAA:8 a=4YC7WVefAAAA:] X-AnalysisOut: [8 a=8rWy6zfcAAAA:8 a=XfjEpyLPcTd-1dCrjboA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA] X-AnalysisOut: [:10 a=pjrC_YA95a8A:10 a=SumTzdpxxCEA:10] X-Spam: [F=0.5000000000; CM=0.500; MH=0.500(2014101506); S=0.200(2014051901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [66.151.187.12] 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 11:44:57 -0000 We have not directly tried to use the 1.7 code with fragmentation apis, but= we did run through the 1.7 code and did not find any much difference betwe= en 1.6 and 1.7 code.=20 I had wrongly mentioned out-of-order in my previous mail. Actually out-of-o= rder is working fine but we are facing issues with overlapping and duplicat= e fragments. In the 1.7 fragmentation code also in file ip_frag_internals.c , function = ip_frag_process we also see this comment /* * errorneous packet: either exceeed max allowed number of fragments, * or duplicate first/last fragment encountered. */ Which indirectly suggest that the handling of duplicate first/last fragment= is taken as error. Same with overlapping fragment we could not find any pi= ece of code which will be doing it. -- Regards, Souvik -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]=20 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 ME TOO, I HAVE A BUG WITH CAPS LOCK ;) 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-order. > Are this known limitations in DPDK or they are not working due to some=20 > bugs in the code ? Please test the latest version and explain how you see the bug. Thanks -- Thomas