From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A94A09EF;
	Wed, 16 Dec 2020 16:58:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC1EC9C8;
	Wed, 16 Dec 2020 16:58:29 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-io1-f43.google.com (mail-io1-f43.google.com
 [209.85.166.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ABBFC9BC
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 16:58:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-io1-f43.google.com with SMTP id y5so24394220iow.5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 07:58:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=WtfvlQ1v+o8R6VmPpV0SQB9ec8ywSzQ5xloJnSO4L/U=;
 b=FLmzLeBNok8znHn4c2Hoze5+a4Qudb/S7Om8h+6oY+QbxSTA4mKtN94C3sc0e7G/As
 Hj6uD2XmCSEPzSA0QhMZkaPnL7irefbY2iuArCj1yjxgJfOSNyZa1iWNU5RmmaLkYIew
 ITJwPwGBlwEwCNjyL0vvrePI2/NLDncd4+hOlB1DLORNIcKqi6DyplHFLCDMFNBhCnNJ
 Pq8cSreR6z1hh/SoHDCHsRIiOgFPmWiVafafSxjvQ6sI0syCz1TNw5ZyUYuqMKJDDXS9
 eubAHvhipW2z39Byj33Y4fseui+tvxh/Ab70J1SqZ9EVJTAflbHx8xtpb3q9kUUJk6Ox
 1VBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=WtfvlQ1v+o8R6VmPpV0SQB9ec8ywSzQ5xloJnSO4L/U=;
 b=qDVp2SJzmqcAs7lwuux+wzxAUSTztrdgIIoawFES8ZQF6DXkOHfWcFmm3qPTOA65Df
 /qKiJege3tUeoqdOuAk2r6Iwpm4f1FFTDnM+T/6sn+igX/Es8ga62ZDTehoh1HXub7fV
 6BVX02Rd9z2REmX5MLG7JKSFrxE5kU1PLcvVMbHiHzoRwb7O7YmNMHSmPrSa6TT76QHq
 lf9KenfCUvqfM1oTlp+jfuRjGDJnirasZZzVp9o/xYuc9cW9yi6/WNHftrOjteY89Ws3
 JkIgybaAv59jf6mGjXUJP23m4Qi0RmhRplRyZyhLdSQJTBVoKHBEg7KkbOOWl4GdoOKx
 TcDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mXhqn0KY6x9iH+0j+HSYnJG2i25+qIgChehRam3354gGPAcbE
 Bu9IuZZ+p7KVJv9a87ma1lzsCH9OTRNpaF/6I5RSpI9Z
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx0ABZu2Ch92pSLrTboxt7yetzOkvy5g0p52uMzltflC65/5rkWJlJ1D6KrcRX1ai068d9pbWZjoO+pvm3PyyQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:1653:: with SMTP id
 y19mr43270983iow.90.1608134304519; 
 Wed, 16 Dec 2020 07:58:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Jacques Fourie <jacques.fourie@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 10:58:11 -0500
Message-ID: <CALX0vxB0HGd97-P9ZVfLS5A3U3uVyH27ksp9nWKj3zOB8149SQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.15
Subject: [dpdk-dev] L4 rx checksum verification in tun/tap pmd
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Hi,

I noticed that TCP rx checksum verification fails when using the tap pmd.
In this particular case packets with correct checksums will always have
PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_BAD set in ol_flags. The rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum() and
rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum() functions already return the ones complement of the
checksum, unlike rte_raw_cksum(), which is used for the L3 checksum
verification. After changing the code to use rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum()
instead of ~rte_ipv4_udptcp_cksum() the problem seems to be fixed. The same
thing goes for rte_ipv6_udptcp_cksum().

Regards,
Jacques