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 14028A00C3; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:55:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE094281A; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:55:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUR05-DB8-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db8eur05on2086.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.20.86]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ADF04069F; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:03:10 +0200 (CEST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=KAlPUZJr+pZa9lkw5wboqKYlvsY+hP7Pfn4RWdfV5YD4qLrr4sODgMJQRsZhcnueB09hJLNRtnrbVjsmbdVBiRAkjDUbENPvthyTFOTZBjFPOwTJ5K0hohWPoa84F2Uxo/UhPeHkKjShzLTZ9dZaERUyGXyGzxblAQUbNfbojytHTZwtXadugivaTuwFtOyBFNfugohCxnOKLF+rQjPDBLdxWUzcooz7OtSfKunDF5Ocuj2Vm3lFFvGEhlzldXYj3CxmmQvnMZ7yvSaJVhOeLiNt2ankGnOt/+LIH6SWlhDm9X34JPR/CdWCtPCCRd8xSpucrZRH3WryTH9+Qtf9aA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=jyRt3A1iM2HgcwSnzgSD2KuLWEm0p/CoTUwoHx6tO3A=; b=Mu9WvmmDlk00VY0jwVKb7VpkWXUOQcBQjRIDAA6vgx+89Xps7vZQDp1UyPHAJl3PC6/WJr+MXWE8PDO0v3q3nyRmY5pRkTjB0zKOHxAtgV2jMg6ffc+uK7nNbMJ3fy9vDymYl3+Ki8F3MAqorFI6gN/nGenomLFiHbz9eOmveFvfJB6AR70N4KfILH7cLO9cgGxSFKP2n/Eq674PxPQSoC5nbYZXJdpPnoVEgDABuRmfo8dAL5e3PkZ2eWlWgdytDmkwLEWnK2me4/TxPm8YrMiMJcH1/5Xepvo1Xwl0QS6xPOlCydMLK6rq5fNlOHtLkjnVWh81mxttgdhw75S5NQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ericsson.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=ericsson.com; dkim=pass header.d=ericsson.com; arc=none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ericsson.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=jyRt3A1iM2HgcwSnzgSD2KuLWEm0p/CoTUwoHx6tO3A=; b=Wd9dTHSpN3NJNnnttw5bEhTcRNtUw2tMdS+RNGi4J4NF7IPZrsgDv8d9ByMraf0y3875ic9G06oJqVrI6WoS1CzAz3K72DYfeeMDYd+mptkxWanNd/tGLuRcAF4sV8hu9+N/F7zDpknoTR4K+nxLZHTFgo8VBi2I5xaRxXLyvx0= Received: from AM8PR07MB7666.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:20b:240::23) by HE1PR0701MB2986.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (2603:10a6:3:52::11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.5373.15; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:03:08 +0000 Received: from AM8PR07MB7666.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::188:e139:774e:cea1]) by AM8PR07MB7666.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::188:e139:774e:cea1%7]) with mapi id 15.20.5373.015; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:03:08 +0000 From: Emil Berg To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= , Bruce Richardson CC: Stephen Hemminger , "stable@dpdk.org" , "bugzilla@dpdk.org" , "hofors@lysator.liu.se" , "olivier.matz@6wind.com" , "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: fix checksum with unaligned buffer Thread-Topic: [PATCH] net: fix checksum with unaligned buffer Thread-Index: AQHYgiaa5HfwvbWOiEyQ5g/wygBtSq1TTuaAgATMtJCAAAQg8IABVuVggAAFVwCAABAOAIAAFBGAgAFa5uCAADK3AIAAI7mAgAAOwgCAABrZ4IAAAikw Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:03:08 +0000 Message-ID: References: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87139@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <20220617084505.62071-1-mb@smartsharesystems.com> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D8713A@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87141@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87145@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87148@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87152@smartserver.smartshare.dk> <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87154@smartserver.smartshare.dk> In-Reply-To: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35D87154@smartserver.smartshare.dk> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=ericsson.com; x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2a79d8eb-87d5-4984-ef0f-08da5457efb1 x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: HE1PR0701MB2986:EE_ x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-relay: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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 x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:AM8PR07MB7666.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(13230016)(4636009)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(366004)(396003)(346002)(71200400001)(66446008)(66556008)(66476007)(64756008)(4326008)(41300700001)(66946007)(76116006)(478600001)(44832011)(8936002)(8676002)(2906002)(52536014)(186003)(9686003)(33656002)(5660300002)(6506007)(26005)(30864003)(7696005)(86362001)(966005)(53546011)(110136005)(122000001)(55016003)(316002)(54906003)(38100700002)(66574015)(83380400001)(82960400001)(38070700005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-chunkcount: 1 x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata-0: =?iso-8859-1?Q?JQtGpM4JvY+3JOW0ObDQ9z+GMFgR2t5zuJzbxEK3cGw3Z7q4nm/Juhe36y?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?al+aZ7cMWlEPeb88HGCbQnevCoxjEV4oDK1blqYFL6BVu4wTn3zVg3pncS?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?RLNDVwvC/gwdpf3BrtcqU/XdDGG3EGFXejzMomr4VUk8Ll4Qp1uiLq//Fe?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?46Jixhom6VKJIQypemGy58pKFDn33UMBvDnQQG5/NQaXvW1oDP3wLtigCl?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?rA+/Mg67EIHNfB0cyyi9CmanCPeSQ22BAzhmsle5nzm7gB/BlJ6NlMKvWu?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?HU2LNKmvtVxH8mgkp0t+eSJOcv4AUuBbZ0YALkSqkGp4FlctEZFShaFJhy?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?MRP5GoveYWFGgzpQVvAnJ2G+25CwPokgPkyXI/TSbKAOL9iI5i+15B4ddh?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?4QSpcmALMqtUeRB3+oPf/piDola56Myeu3dT3L/77F/+kmKO/v9Z6PAb+E?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?X+CnBywKdRmLMUrUKCJcBh85EkGdsxsw5YHNaZ1EeE4E43vbca0MfJ140q?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?uOhP0YBzM1DLf2F9YFk0gvG33V84Ag1uHyCLidiQcTul+y9lZZX6/dbyoU?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?BBCGGI8kaLQjIy9UvDCFryOJaw0vB1zWMqxSo0gnV1C//VWfm3d0pQACjq?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?7EFVlOjf1e1k18McVkKFLKfRJdnLufNjFlDZTsVxUs4HaU5Z/us4v9G+2I?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?rGj6OCdDLOqczW5ayhqv0YBJGV/flVFhOnDI1rHTyNUZ+kA1GHGwiUN+DK?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?l70PNt0px4zBlq8zSUibyXH4FL0MmvDSwGywuG1MtErYI75ta3Qcek8WcF?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?FEhqtA3SR7EwA59rDOYNk75lJbRFso4iN07gJYMiW7Ia2xWXPHUttMibt+?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?4e04M66QasW5HCsnMxFtWmcqrYZdR3NpsTUQMrg5tF4j44f66pj9rHfb+h?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?yDTTeuK4gIuFcVdFrwLlDcYay4fv0BZCHmV6aD4xo7lk3dVGd+IPfqrw4d?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?OSnk481PQFTgHuiEXPf23wYAI/rw+/Ux3/Stmkt1ZloZeKBRexF73LqUmU?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?zBwe7WNhChMjnc8ChTu/gJG6q3t9JWcBca32a6Jnyd4F50pVKYch9IMtUC?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?WbFEMz1Din6iZmYyoMT0gYWNWjOwQ1HnaiB5bHtC/av0oJl95+/PP93CUG?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mte0UCTEYUb1dDsTbZqLfX6/esMbn5FafZOzgOTCgrn7hTABvntwvAdm0K?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?bxUQ12oQgGH0EjDvHTEEtuZ4cD4ppNY4TLrFbHqaFXe1VsZGIjo7TzGz0y?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?bm4DqCu1p3tl8HKsnSDiITz21oMqudwo0hZSvoU1H3QZmrJXjiwxHNwY9V?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?9mZeQrQXgU0e7Z6daHsM8cDrXDaIDospS7NRs4fQG57fv0F4BW5q9SEG1N?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?b9Z2Llb0QRzr4VzBysHNRJxM4TZgCtHVJ2HtBxyt7cXaiyWWMWAbskuQev?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?1Vl+nGk8bkzFkkRqgB2puCcd0w44mccoOH5BiTo4sy1P/EYBj/3N8VzMKv?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?vgsJKsr9m9NAxfLOIm2uspr09XW1QHDh4sHm7SzN7uqUJgwGH40XZfOpzK?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?oDj4gdpN5KzwcbX8CGdXSrH6Qu5y54gS/N?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ericsson.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: AM8PR07MB7666.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2a79d8eb-87d5-4984-ef0f-08da5457efb1 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 Jun 2022 14:03:08.6025 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 92e84ceb-fbfd-47ab-be52-080c6b87953f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: ecUARF7F1lD/p6a0kIQAwZ/DpQE64BxM3x3+B3TZN+O8GOulvtBkJpsdvAp1mYxCtO82vMbf09RATjqkfJOc3w== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: HE1PR0701MB2986 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:55:03 +0200 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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Morten Br=F8rup > Sent: den 22 juni 2022 16:02 > To: Emil Berg ; Bruce Richardson > > Cc: Stephen Hemminger ; > stable@dpdk.org; bugzilla@dpdk.org; hofors@lysator.liu.se; > olivier.matz@6wind.com; dev@dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: fix checksum with unaligned buffer >=20 > > From: Emil Berg [mailto:emil.berg@ericsson.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2022 14.25 > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup > > > Sent: den 22 juni 2022 13:26 > > > > > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 22 June 2022 11.18 > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 06:26:07AM +0000, Emil Berg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > > > Sent: den 21 juni 2022 11:35 > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Bruce Richardson [mailto:bruce.richardson@intel.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2022 10.23 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 10:05:15AM +0200, Morten Br=F8rup > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +TO: @Bruce and @Stephen: You signed off on the 16 bit > > > > alignment > > > > > > > requirement. We need background info on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Emil Berg [mailto:emil.berg@ericsson.com] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 21 June 2022 09.17 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > > > > > > > Sent: den 20 juni 2022 12:58 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Emil Berg [mailto:emil.berg@ericsson.com] > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, 20 June 2022 12.38 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: den 17 juni 2022 11:07 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > > > > > > > > > > [mailto:mb@smartsharesystems.com] > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, 17 June 2022 10.45 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With this patch, the checksum can be calculated > > on > > > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > unligned > > > > > > > > > > > > > part > > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > > a packet buffer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I.e. the buf parameter is no longer required to > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > 16 > > > > bit > > > > > > > > > aligned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The DPDK invariant that packet buffers must be > > > > > > > > > > > > > 16 bit > > > > > > > aligned > > > > > > > > > > > remains > > > > > > > > > > > > > unchanged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This invariant also defines how to calculate the > > 16 > > > > bit > > > > > > > > > checksum > > > > > > > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > > > unaligned part of a packet buffer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bugzilla ID: 1035 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Morten Br=F8rup > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > lib/net/rte_ip.h | 17 +++++++++++++++-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/lib/net/rte_ip.h b/lib/net/rte_ip.h > > > > index > > > > > > > > > > > > > b502481670..8e301d9c26 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/lib/net/rte_ip.h > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/lib/net/rte_ip.h > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -162,9 +162,22 @@ __rte_raw_cksum(const void > > > > > > > > > > > > > *buf, > > > > > > > size_t > > > > > > > > > len, > > > > > > > > > > > > > uint32_t sum) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > /* extend strict-aliasing rules */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > typedef uint16_t > > > __attribute__((__may_alias__)) > > > > > > > u16_p; > > > > > > > > > > > > > - const u16_p *u16_buf =3D (const u16_p *)buf; > > > > > > > > > > > > > - const u16_p *end =3D u16_buf + len / > > > > sizeof(*u16_buf); > > > > > > > > > > > > > + const u16_p *u16_buf; > > > > > > > > > > > > > + const u16_p *end; > > > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > > > + /* if buffer is unaligned, keeping it byte > > > > order > > > > > > > > > independent */ > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (unlikely((uintptr_t)buf & 1)) { > > > > > > > > > > > > > + uint16_t first =3D 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > > + if (unlikely(len =3D=3D 0)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ((unsigned char *)&first)[1] =3D > > > *(const > > > > unsigned > > > > > > > > > > > > char *)buf; > > > > > > > > > > > > > + sum +=3D first; > > > > > > > > > > > > > + buf =3D (const void *)((uintptr_t)buf > > > + 1); > > > > > > > > > > > > > + len--; > > > > > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + u16_buf =3D (const u16_p *)buf; > > > > > > > > > > > > > + end =3D u16_buf + len / sizeof(*u16_buf); > > > > > > > > > > > > > for (; u16_buf !=3D end; ++u16_buf) > > > > > > > > > > > > > sum +=3D *u16_buf; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2.17.1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Emil, can you please test this patch with an > > > > > > > > > > > > unaligned > > > > > > > buffer on > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > > application to confirm that it produces the > > expected > > > > result. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I tested the patch. It doesn't seem to produce the > > same > > > > > > > results. I > > > > > > > > > > > think the problem is that it always starts summing > > from > > > > an > > > > > > > > > > > even address, the sum should always start from the > > first > > > > byte > > > > > > > according > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > the checksum specification. Can I instead propose > > > > something > > > > > > > Mattias > > > > > > > > > > > R=F6nnblom sent me? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I assume that it produces the same result when the > > "buf" > > > > > > > parameter is > > > > > > > > > > aligned? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And when the "buf" parameter is unaligned, I don't > > expect > > > > it to > > > > > > > > > produce the > > > > > > > > > > same results as the simple algorithm! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the whole point of the patch: I expect the > > > > > > > > > > overall > > > > > > > packet > > > > > > > > > buffer to > > > > > > > > > > be 16 bit aligned, and the checksum to be a partial > > > > checksum of > > > > > > > such > > > > > > > > > a 16 bit > > > > > > > > > > aligned packet buffer. When calling this function, I > > > > > > > > > > assume > > > > that > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > "buf" and > > > > > > > > > > "len" parameters point to a part of such a packet > > buffer. > > > > If > > > > > > > these > > > > > > > > > > expectations are correct, the simple algorithm will > > > > > > > > > > produce > > > > > > > incorrect > > > > > > > > > results > > > > > > > > > > when "buf" is unaligned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was asking you to test if the checksum on the packet > > is > > > > > > > > > > correct > > > > > > > > > when your > > > > > > > > > > application modifies an unaligned part of the packet > > and > > > > uses > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > function to > > > > > > > > > > update the checksum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I understand your use case. Your use case seems to > > > > > > > > > be > > > > about > > > > > > > partial > > > > > > > > > checksums, of which some partial checksums may start on > > > > unaligned > > > > > > > > > addresses in an otherwise aligned packet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Our use case is about calculating the full checksum on a > > > > nested > > > > > > > packet. > > > > > > > > > That nested packet may start on unaligned addresses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The difference is basically if we want to sum over > > aligned > > > > > > > addresses or > > > > > > > > > not, handling the heading and trailing bytes > > appropriately. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your method does not work in our case since we want to > > treat > > > > the > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > > two bytes as the first word in our case. But I do > > understand > > > > that > > > > > > > both > > > > > > > > > methods are useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that certainly are two different use cases, requiring > > two > > > > > > > different ways of calculating the 16 bit checksum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Note that your method breaks the API. Previously > > (assuming > > > > > > > > > no > > > > > > > crashing > > > > > > > > > due to low optimization levels, more accepting hardware, > > or > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > > > compiler (version)) the current method would calculate > > the > > > > > > > > > checksum assuming the first two bytes is the first word. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Depending on the point of view, my patch either fixes a > > > > > > > > bug > > > > (where > > > > > > > the checksum was calculated incorrectly when the buf pointer > > was > > > > > > > unaligned) or breaks the API (by calculating the differently > > > > > > > when > > > > the > > > > > > > buffer is unaligned). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I cannot say with certainty which one is correct, but > > perhaps > > > > some > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the people with a deeper DPDK track record can... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Bruce and @Stephen, in 2019 you signed off on a patch [1] > > > > > > > introducing a 16 bit alignment requirement to the Ethernet > > > > address > > > > > > > structure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is my understanding that DPDK has an invariant > > > > > > > > requiring > > > > packets > > > > > > > to be 16 bit aligned, which that patch supports. Is this > > > > invariant > > > > > > > documented anywhere, or am I completely wrong? If I'm wrong, > > > > > > > then > > > > the > > > > > > > alignment requirement introduced in that patch needs to be > > > > removed, as > > > > > > > well as any similar alignment requirements elsewhere in DPDK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe it is explicitly documented as a global > > > > invariant, but > > > > > > > I think it should be unless there is a definite case where > > > > > > > we > > > > need to > > > > > > > allow packets to be completely unaligned. Across all packet > > > > headers we > > > > > > > looked at, there was no tunneling protocol where the > > resulting > > > > packet > > > > > > > was left unaligned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That said, if there are real use cases where we need to > > > > > > > allow > > > > packets > > > > > > > to start at an unaligned address, then I agree with you that > > we > > > > need > > > > > > > to roll back the patch and work to ensure everything works > > with > > > > > > > unaligned addresses. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Emil, can you please describe or refer to which tunneling > > > > > > protocol > > > > you are > > > > > > using, where the nested packet can be unaligned? > > > > > > > > > > > > I am asking to determine if your use case is exotic (maybe > > > > > > some > > > > Ericsson > > > > > > proprietary protocol), or more generic (rooted in some > > > > > > standard > > > > protocol). > > > > > > This information affects the DPDK community's opinion about > > > > > > how > > it > > > > should > > > > > > be supported by DPDK. > > > > > > > > > > > > If possible, please provide more details about the tunneling > > > > protocol and > > > > > > nested packets... E.g. do the nested packets also contain > > > > > > Layer > > 2 > > > > (Ethernet, > > > > > > VLAN, etc.) headers, or only Layer 3 (IP) or Layer 4 (TCP, > > > > > > UDP, > > > > etc.)? And how > > > > > > about ARP packets and Layer 2 control protocol packets (STP, > > LACP, > > > > etc.)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if you append or adjust an odd number of bytes (e.g. a > > > > > PDCP > > > > header) from a previously aligned payload the entire packet will > > then > > > > be unaligned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If PDCP headers can leave the rest of the packet field unaligned, > > then > > > > we had better remove the alignment restrictions through all of > > DPDK. > > > > > > > > /Bruce > > > > > > Re-reading the details regarding unaligned pointers in C11, as > > > posted > > by Emil > > > in Bugzilla [2], I interpret it as follows: Any 16 bit or wider > > pointer type a must > > > point to data aligned with that type, i.e. a pointer of the type > > "uint16_t *" > > > must point to 16 bit aligned data, and a pointer of the type > > "uint64_t *" must > > > point to 64 bit aligned data. Please, someone tell me I got this > > wrong, and > > > wake me up from my nightmare! > > > > > > Updating DPDK's packet structures to fully support this C11 > > limitation with > > > unaligned access would be a nightmare, as we would need to use byte > > arrays > > > for all structure fields. Functions would also be unable to use > > > other > > pointer > > > types than "void *" and "char *", which seems to be the actual > > problem in > > > the __rte_raw_cksum() function. I guess that it also would prevent > > the > > > compiler from auto-vectorizing the functions. > > > > > > I am usually a big proponent of academically correct solutions, but > > such a > > > change would be too wide ranging, so I would like to narrow it down > > to the > > > actual use case, and perhaps extrapolate a bit from there. > > > > > > @Emil: Do you only need to calculate the checksum of the > > > (potentially > > > unaligned) embedded packet? Or do you also need to use other DPDK > > > functions with the embedded packet, potentially accessing it at an > > unaligned > > > address? > > > > > > I'm trying to determine the scope of this C11 pointer alignment > > limitation for > > > your use case, i.e. whether or not other DPDK functions need to be > > updated > > > to support unaligned packet access too. > > > > > > [2] > > > https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=3D31323334-501cfaf3-313273af- > > > 454445554331-2ffe58e5caaeb74e&q=3D1&e=3D3f0544d3-8a71-4676-b4f9- > > > > 27e0952f7de0&u=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fbugs.dpdk.org%2Fshow_bug.cgi%3Fid% > > > 3D1035 > > > > That's my interpretation of the standard as well; For example an > > uint16_t* must be on even addresses. If not it is undefined behavior. > > I think this is a bigger problem on ARM for example. > > > > Without being that invested in dpdk, adding unaligned support for > > everything seems like a steep step, but I'm not sure what it entails > > in practice. > > > > We are actually only interested in the checksumming. >=20 > Great! Then we can cancel the panic about rewriting DPDK Core completely. > Although it might still need some review for similar alignment bugs, wher= e > we have been forcing the compiler shut up when trying to warn us. :-) >=20 > I have provided v3 of the patch, which should do as requested - and still= allow > the compiler to auto-vectorize. >=20 > @Emil, will you please test v3 of the patch? I will test the patch tomorrow.