DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Cc: Kaiwen Deng <kaiwenx.deng@intel.com>,
	dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, qiming.yang@intel.com,
	yidingx.zhou@intel.com, Aman Singh <aman.deep.singh@intel.com>,
	Yuying Zhang <yuying.zhang@intel.com>,
	Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com>,
	Pablo de Lara <pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] app/test-pmd: fix L4 checksum with padding data
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2023 00:50:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7a41467c-c863-4ea1-bf7c-9206bf56aa34@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231116145817.78eb0954@hermes.local>

On 11/16/2023 10:58 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 19:20:07 +0000
> Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@amd.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/4/2023 9:28 AM, Kaiwen Deng wrote:
>>> IEEE 802 packets may have a minimum size limit. The data fields
>>> should be padded when necessary. In some cases, the padding data
>>> is not zero. Testpmd does not trim these IP packets to the true
>>> length of the frame, so errors will occur when calculating TCP
>>> or UDP checksum.
>>>   
>>
>> Hi Kaiwen,
>>
>> I am trying to understand the problem, what is the testcase that has
>> checksum error?
>>
>> Are the received mbuf data_len & pkt_len wrong? Instead of trying to fix
>> the mbuf during forwarding, can we fix where packet generated?
> 
> The root cause is that get_udptcp_cksum_mbuf is using m->pkt_len
> which maybe larger than the actual data. The real issue is there and
> in rte_ip.h checksum code. The correct fix would be to use l3_len instead.
> 

I see, you are right.

In 'rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum_mbuf()',
as payload length "mbuf->pkt_len - l4_off" is used, which includes
padding and if padding is not zero it will end up producing wrong checksum.


I agree using 'l3_len' instead is correct fix.

But this requires ABI/API change,
plus do we have any reason to keep the padding, discarding it as this
patch does is also simpler alternative.


Other alternative can be to zero the padding bytes. I guess standard
doesn't enforce them to be zero, but we can do this to remove its impact
on checksum calculation.


@Kaiwen, did you able to test this with HW offload, what is the behavior
of the HW, does is remove padding bytes?


> It also looks like test-pmd is not validating the IP header.
> Both parse_ipv4() and parse_ipv6() should check if packet was truncated.
> Same for both UDP and TCP lengths.
> 



  reply	other threads:[~2023-11-17  0:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-04  8:28 Kaiwen Deng
2023-11-02 19:20 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-11-03  2:49   ` Deng, KaiwenX
2023-11-03  4:03     ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-11-14  2:19       ` Deng, KaiwenX
2023-11-14 19:09         ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-11-16  7:02           ` Deng, KaiwenX
2023-11-16 22:58   ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-11-17  0:50     ` Ferruh Yigit [this message]
2023-11-17  3:28       ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-11-17  9:29         ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-11-17 12:11           ` Morten Brørup
2023-11-17 16:23             ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-11-17 16:22           ` Stephen Hemminger
2023-11-20 10:47             ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-11-20  9:21       ` Deng, KaiwenX
2023-11-20 10:46         ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-11-22  3:04           ` Deng, KaiwenX
2023-11-17  1:13 ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-11-20  9:52   ` Deng, KaiwenX
2023-12-07  8:53 ` [PATCH v2] app/test-pmd: fix tcp/udp cksum " Kaiwen Deng
2023-12-07 14:35   ` Ferruh Yigit
2023-12-12  2:16   ` [PATCH v3] lib/net: " Kaiwen Deng
2023-12-12  8:10     ` Morten Brørup
2023-12-13  4:37     ` [PATCH v4] " Kaiwen Deng
2023-12-13  7:36       ` Morten Brørup
2023-12-14  9:22       ` [PATCH v5] " Kaiwen Deng
2023-12-14 11:20         ` Morten Brørup
2024-02-19  1:10           ` Thomas Monjalon

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=7a41467c-c863-4ea1-bf7c-9206bf56aa34@amd.com \
    --to=ferruh.yigit@amd.com \
    --cc=aman.deep.singh@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=kaiwenx.deng@intel.com \
    --cc=olivier.matz@6wind.com \
    --cc=pablo.de.lara.guarch@intel.com \
    --cc=qiming.yang@intel.com \
    --cc=stable@dpdk.org \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=yidingx.zhou@intel.com \
    --cc=yuying.zhang@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).