From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: "Zhang, Helin" <helin.zhang@intel.com>,
Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] mbuf: fix of enabling all newly added RX error flags
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 12:16:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54897CF6.2020509@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <F35DEAC7BCE34641BA9FAC6BCA4A12E70A7D0A78@SHSMSX104.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Hi Helin,
On 12/10/2014 11:29 PM, Zhang, Helin wrote:
>>>>> --- a/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_mbuf/rte_mbuf.h
>>>>> @@ -83,12 +83,7 @@ extern "C" {
>>>>> #define PKT_RX_RSS_HASH (1ULL << 1) /**< RX packet with
>> RSS
>>>> hash result. */
>>>>> #define PKT_RX_FDIR (1ULL << 2) /**< RX packet with
>> FDIR
>>>> match indicate. */
>>>>> #define PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD (1ULL << 3) /**< L4 cksum of RX
>> pkt.
>>>> is
>>>>> not OK. */ -#define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD (1ULL << 4) /**< IP
>>>>> cksum of RX pkt. is not OK. */ -#define PKT_RX_EIP_CKSUM_BAD (0ULL
>>>>> << 0) /**<
>>>> External IP header checksum error. */
>>>>> -#define PKT_RX_OVERSIZE (0ULL << 0) /**< Num of desc of an
>> RX
>>>> pkt oversize. */
>>>>> -#define PKT_RX_HBUF_OVERFLOW (0ULL << 0) /**< Header buffer
>>>> overflow. */
>>>>> -#define PKT_RX_RECIP_ERR (0ULL << 0) /**< Hardware
>> processing
>>>> error. */
>>>>> -#define PKT_RX_MAC_ERR (0ULL << 0) /**< MAC error. */
>>>>> +#define PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD (1ULL << 4) /**< IP (or inner IP)
>>>>> +header checksum error. */
>>>>
>>>> It can be also an outer IP header in case the device don't support
>>>> tunneling or is not configured to detect it.
>>>
>>> For non-tunneling case, no outer/inner at all, it just has the IP
>>> header. The bit flag indicates the IP header checksum error.
>>> For tunneling case, this bit flag indicates the inner IP header
>>> checksum error, another one for outer IP header checksum error.
>>> So I don't think this bit can be treated as outer.
>>
>> I think you didn't understand my comment.
>> I talk about NICs which don't have tunneling support.
>> In this case, the outer IP header is seen as a simple IP header.
>> So, depending on which port is receiving a tunneled packet, this flag or the
>> dedicated one can be used for outer IP checksum.
> I think I did understand your point. For those port which does not support tunneling,
> if a 'tunneling' packet received, it never knows that's tunneling packet, it always treats
> it as a general IP packet. The "inner" IP is just part of its data. For this case, no outer
> or inner at all, just an IP header.
>
>>
>> I just suggest to remove the part "(or inner IP)" of the comment.
>> Do you agree?
> I got it, actually I wanted to describe it as (or inner IP for tunneling), as the macro name
> does not tell it could be inner IP header checksum error for tunneling case.
I still don't understand how to use that flag. Let's imagine an
application that processes an IP packet:
ip_input(m) /* receive a packet after ethernet header is stripped */
{
if (m->ol_flags & PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD) {
log("packet dropped");
rte_pktmbuf_free(m);
return;
}
/* continue IP header processing,maybe route the packet? */
...
This kind of code works since a long time with dpdk on ixgbe, even
if you receive a tunnel packet.
In my understanding, with your patch, if you receive a tunnel packet on
i40e, the flag PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD is about the inner header, which
should not be checked by a router. This would make the code above
not working anymore. Am I correct?
By the way (it's a bit out of topic), as we already noticed on the
list some times, in the future we should add another flags
PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_VERIFIED in addition to PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_BAD because
many drivers do not support hardware checksum, or only supports it in
specific conditions (ex: no IP options, or no vlan, ...). We should
think about it for 2.0.
Regards,
Olivier
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-12-11 11:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-26 6:07 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] i40e: Use one bit flag for all hardware detected RX packet errors Helin Zhang
2014-11-26 10:49 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-11-26 11:22 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-11-26 13:38 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-11-26 14:12 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-11-28 8:07 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-11-28 8:47 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-01 1:57 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-01 9:58 ` Olivier MATZ
2014-12-02 7:25 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-05 1:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/2] fix of enabling all newly added error flags Helin Zhang
2014-12-05 1:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] i40e: remove checking rxd flag which is not public Helin Zhang
2014-12-05 1:46 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/2] mbuf: assign valid bit values for some RX and TX flags Helin Zhang
2014-12-05 10:49 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-06 0:42 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-06 1:07 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-08 10:55 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-09 2:29 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-06 1:33 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] mbuf: fix of enabling all newly added RX error flags Helin Zhang
2014-12-08 10:44 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2014-12-09 2:23 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-08 10:50 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-09 2:14 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-09 6:22 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-10 8:55 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4] " Helin Zhang
2014-12-10 9:35 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-10 13:50 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-10 15:26 ` Thomas Monjalon
2014-12-10 22:29 ` Zhang, Helin
2014-12-11 11:16 ` Olivier MATZ [this message]
2014-12-12 1:27 ` Zhang, Helin
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=54897CF6.2020509@6wind.com \
--to=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=helin.zhang@intel.com \
--cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.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).