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 89ED9A052A; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:21:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from [217.70.189.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B145141035; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:21:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBC5141034 for ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:21:13 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1611771673; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mS0rj+Awt3BMnCX4AvjloP6knJtDxU4gGQz3YUq2dZ0=; b=L/W4pXIG5fdhI7vlFUUjraxyVDIiXIgeh4y0JjzchS60PEKLwO1wPlsEtQ10Kbz6jd+Eji OMndhX+9yMzATomNTxf85O3x7N/4CVN+wbq/haFTdSAC4TyodLS/gqwq+MZ4f1rQdACePG SGmlZlEBLRb/NMF6cysbMXKTxfzayr0= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-226-A7IHMv_VPQWLaa_NSPiVUg-1; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:21:09 -0500 X-MC-Unique: A7IHMv_VPQWLaa_NSPiVUg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D34F18C8C00; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 18:21:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-114-243.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.114.243]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 251BF60BF3; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 18:21:07 +0000 (UTC) From: Aaron Conole To: "Wang\, Haiyue" Cc: Paolo Valerio , "dev\@dpdk.org" , "Guo\, Jia" References: <87zh0u1od0.fsf@fed.void> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 13:21:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Haiyue Wang's message of "Wed, 27 Jan 2021 17:26:39 +0000") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=aconole@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: 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. :( Just wondering that it means here - there's a user of DPDK who has an ixgbe card exhibiting this behavior. What do DPDK engineers tell them to do? Change the hardware? Upgrade the firmware? > + /* > + * 82599 errata, UDP frames with a 0 checksum can be marked as > + * checksum errors. > + */ > + if ((pkt_info & IXGBE_RXDADV_PKTTYPE_UDP) && > + (adapter->hw.mac.type == ixgbe_mac_82599EB)) > + return; > >> >> Regards, >> Paolo