Re: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix Tx offloading flags check

[Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>]

On 24-Oct-23 9:44 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 10:40 AM Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 24-Oct-23 6:42 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 12:38 AM
>>>> To: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing.wu@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei <beilei.xing@intel.com>
>>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Nicolau, Radu <radu.nicolau@intel.com>;
>>>> stable@dpdk.org; Marchand, David <david.marchand@redhat.com>
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix Tx offloading flags check
>>>>
>>>> Use IAVF_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK flags instead of
>>>> IAVF_TX_CKSUM_OFFLOAD_MASK.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 3c715591ece0 ("net/iavf: fix checksum offloading")
>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>> Cc: david.marchand@redhat.com
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nicolau@intel.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx.c | 2 +-
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx.c b/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx.c index
>>>> c6ef6af1d8..85f8c141ce 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/iavf/iavf_rxtx.c
>>>> @@ -2664,7 +2664,7 @@ iavf_build_data_desc_cmd_offset_fields(volatile
>>>> uint64_t *qw1,
>>>>               l2tag1 |= m->vlan_tci;
>>>>       }
>>>>
>>>> -    if ((m->ol_flags & IAVF_TX_CKSUM_OFFLOAD_MASK) == 0)
>>>> +    if ((m->ol_flags & IAVF_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK) == 0)
>>> Not sure if this will break previous fix.
>>> Could you please provide some clarification regarding the specific offload flags that not in IAVF_TX_CKSUM_OFFLOAD_MASK, but you still don't want to skip?
>> A specific flag is RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY, and because this is not
>> contained in IAVF_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK the previous fix broke the inline
>> crypto feature.
> RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY is a ethdev level flag.
> This is not supposed to be in a mbuf ol_flags, is it?

No, it's not, you are right. Actually it's RTE_MBUF_F_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD, 
and that also means the IAVF_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK definition is not correct. 
I will send another patch to fix the definition of IAVF_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK.

As for this fix, if you prefer a safer approach I can add another check 
only for RTE_MBUF_F_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD, but one way or the other we need to 
have this fix.


>
>
>