From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from p02c11o141.mxlogic.net (p02c11o141.mxlogic.net [208.65.144.74]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C937E77 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 14:23:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from unknown [66.151.187.11] (EHLO smtp.sonusnet.com) by p02c11o141.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-8.2.0-0) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id df86e345.0.67610.00-366.163635.p02c11o141.mxlogic.net (envelope-from ); Wed, 15 Oct 2014 06:30:59 -0600 (MDT) X-MXL-Hash: 543e69032fc6e765-153d36681dc34b8b34fe741171dc231835f04c86 Received: from INBA-HUB02.sonusnet.com (10.70.51.87) by psmwsonshc01.sonusnet.com (10.176.20.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:30:52 -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 18:00:50 +0530 From: "Dey, Souvik" To: "Ananyev, Konstantin" , Thomas Monjalon Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] FW: BUG in IP FRAGMENTATION Thread-Index: Ac/oZ0B22lKbfrCoTWKqR8L2bLPc9gAAKr1A//+o6YD//6G94IAAbaAA//+hCLA= Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 12:30:49 +0000 Message-ID: <4B8F36DD0FB25E47B3DA6F493BF591B70DC59844@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> References: <4B8F36DD0FB25E47B3DA6F493BF591B70DC5972B@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <471124659.68G021lYDz@xps13> <4B8F36DD0FB25E47B3DA6F493BF591B70DC597C1@inba-mail02.sonusnet.com> <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725821393AEE@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <2601191342CEEE43887BDE71AB97725821393AEE@IRSMSX105.ger.corp.intel.com> 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=c9S/QHNl c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=uJKQf5YWhIR+nybujYFUDg==] X-AnalysisOut: [:117 a=uJKQf5YWhIR+nybujYFUDg==: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=QyXUC8HyAAAA:] X-AnalysisOut: [8 a=8rWy6zfcAAAA:8 a=4YC7WVefAAAA:8 a=811ku6_LJ3kitUjmldcA] X-AnalysisOut: [:9 a=S1PchD1YBEpKdG_e:21 a=j2OlBkklo5SFC4Mj:21 a=CjuIK1q_8] X-AnalysisOut: [ugA:10 a=dGJ0OcVc7YAA:10 a=SumTzdpxxCEA:10 a=pjrC_YA95a8A:] X-AnalysisOut: [10] X-Spam: [F=0.5000000000; CM=0.500; MH=0.500(2014101509); S=0.200(2014051901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [66.151.187.11] 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 12:23:10 -0000 Any plans to support this in future in DPDK fragmentation code ? -----Original Message----- From: Ananyev, Konstantin [mailto:konstantin.ananyev@intel.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:49 PM To: Dey, Souvik; Thomas Monjalon Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Patil, PraveenKumar Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] FW: BUG in IP FRAGMENTATION > -----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=20 > apis, but we did run through the 1.7 code and did not find any much diffe= rence between 1.6 and 1.7 code. > I had wrongly mentioned out-of-order in my previous mail. Actually=20 > out-of-order is working fine but we are facing issues with overlapping an= d duplicate fragments. > In the 1.7 fragmentation code also in file ip_frag_internals.c ,=20 > function 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=20 > fragment is taken as error. Same with overlapping fragment we could not f= ind 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=20 > > some bugs in the code ? >=20 > Please test the latest version and explain how you see the bug. >=20 > Thanks > -- > Thomas