From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774C6A09E4; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:19:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 170314068B; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:19:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5114068A for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:19:53 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1611929992; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=0WN53c6ZRfTBFqhx0EWKwvcHw2T+WOOWR6lY4jcd4sA=; b=LyZdTdZGwJqz+BnXlWLm6oWUoFaG0NbSZejTsmhWh6vm20oF95RB0wSB1Bdbttyp/TsKjx jkXyBs90071cYYSGYNYNoTiV4xZ609IT4xo36q/LZcqRbg3b1cuuNCYIZ2xwRLJCDjT9YZ J0jJhc06tG6bzjMDfkH/5qUcfUVN2QM= Received: from mail-ej1-f72.google.com (mail-ej1-f72.google.com [209.85.218.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-423-qa8z2XKZPEGGf_qvPbbqYw-1; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:19:49 -0500 X-MC-Unique: qa8z2XKZPEGGf_qvPbbqYw-1 Received: by mail-ej1-f72.google.com with SMTP id b18so3991677ejz.6 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 06:19:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:mime-version; bh=0WN53c6ZRfTBFqhx0EWKwvcHw2T+WOOWR6lY4jcd4sA=; b=i53yCbNQUkyUzVFWkeShxvkWFjNj5N5W2q0FvlAJZ4nTtSDCjfTLa0n8s5hQo3xohz kyfu6jDvVpvlgmNUyMCv6amK9OTuqRufI11yy2IPvSB7dAOWOOvV+izfOErhEM/wWPKG g05hoj3SQT0lstieUJ6jWVUvz9Yh7S45HFM6z3tEIl2BKyNuvpouITA9jrIXYE4I/l/e +PP/N7lXdeEXh6LAf/+fSbITiLuOkvnhneE7RdDUxLcE4BNcOiQiVsnlxarlRZgSST5m xJuz3DTsd1Ql2xD7S4NXGpX8vl+/W9EXMDY+JktX5zUitZ8l6uHPyVkEFJOPM4jcNcjp spRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oD77EYiB2e7aX22zQgbe5oXARf2EKo9nP0BNjjBo86jpsOmoc 3LoIqckk5beW2vetGEw6lChOfYP+ck3ljD8jN04Pk2NpK6GIxYw9tBvNsK7IrPdpvWK9tw9lvjV Gf5s= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1a56:: with SMTP id j22mr4762707ejf.40.1611929988039; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 06:19:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz7pSnLNfHx5rWoGnpNiNZ266desi1vMWSRT9rT4RjhK/0SX0mxD6BJjOXtkCLWEZ5MFfm4WA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:1a56:: with SMTP id j22mr4762694ejf.40.1611929987910; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 06:19:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (net-37-116-32-78.cust.vodafonedsl.it. [37.116.32.78]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e6sm4249597edv.46.2021.01.29.06.19.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 29 Jan 2021 06:19:47 -0800 (PST) From: Paolo Valerio To: "Wang, Haiyue" , "Yang, Qiming" Cc: "Guo, Jia" , Aaron Conole , "dev@dpdk.org" Cc: In-Reply-To: References: <87im7i12si.fsf@fed.void> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 15:19:42 +0100 Message-ID: <87zh0rlta9.fsf@fed.void> MIME-Version: 1.0 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=pvalerio@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] ixgbe and UDP with zero checksum X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" "Wang, Haiyue" writes: > Hi Paolo, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Wang, Haiyue >> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2021 10:02 >> To: Paolo Valerio >> Cc: Guo, Jia ; Aaron Conole ; dev@dpdk.org >> Subject: RE: ixgbe and UDP with zero checksum >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Paolo Valerio >> > Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 05:35 >> > To: Wang, Haiyue >> > Cc: Guo, Jia ; Aaron Conole ; dev@dpdk.org >> > Subject: RE: ixgbe and UDP with zero checksum >> > >> > "Wang, Haiyue" writes: >> > >> > > Hi Paolo, >> > > >> > >> -----Original Message----- >> > >> From: Paolo Valerio >> > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2021 21:50 >> > >> To: dev@dpdk.org >> > >> Cc: Guo, Jia ; Wang, Haiyue ; Aaron Conole >> > >> >> > >> Subject: ixgbe and UDP with zero checksum >> > >> >> > >> Hi, >> > >> >> > >> performing some tests, I noticed that on ixgbe when receiving UDP >> > >> packets with zero checksum (no checksum) over IPv4, the corresponding >> > >> ol_flag for the l4 checksum is set to PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD. >> > >> >> > >> In particular, this apparently has an impact on OvS using ct() action >> > >> where UDP packets with zero checksum are not tracked because of that. >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > >> [1] >> > >> >> > >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netdev/patch/20090724040031.30202.1531.stgit@localhost.localdomai >> > >> n/ >> > > >> > > About 12 years old patch, it is hardware errata. For fixing this, >> > > have to always disable vector Rx path for 82599, it seems not a >> > > good idea to bring in this workaround. :( >> > > >> > >> > Thanks for the answer. >> > Yes, as I mentioned, the patch is old although still meaningful. >> > I linked it mostly because it mentions the hw errata. >> > >> >> What's your PCI device ID ? My worked ixgbe: >> > > Sorry, I missed the PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD information, yes, my NIC have the issue. > >> 86:00.0 Ethernet controller [0200]: Intel Corporation 82599ES 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ Network Connection >> [8086:10fb] (rev 01) >> >> I'm wondering if people will complain that the patch will mark the real bad checksum UDP as > > Zero checksum is more popular case, please file a bug on https://bugs.dpdk.org/ to trace the fix. > > Thanks for pointing it out. > ack, I'm going to file it. Thanks, Paolo >> GOOD. For handling this correctly, looks like driver needs to check the UDP's checksum value, >> if zero, then skip the error information, but this makes driver do the network stack things ... >> >>