RE: [PATCH V2 net-next] net: hns: Fix to conditionally convey RX checksum flag to stack
From: Salil Mehta <hidden>
Date: 2016-12-01 16:59:30
Also in:
lkml
-----Original Message----- From: Salil Mehta Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 12:09 PM To: 'David Miller' Cc: Zhuangyuzeng (Yisen); mehta.salil.lnk@gmail.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Linuxarm Subject: RE: [PATCH V2 net-next] net: hns: Fix to conditionally convey RX checksum flag to stackquoted
-----Original Message----- From: David Miller [mailto:davem@davemloft.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 7:26 PM To: Salil Mehta Cc: Zhuangyuzeng (Yisen); mehta.salil.lnk@gmail.com; netdev@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Linuxarm Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 net-next] net: hns: Fix to conditionallyconveyquoted
RX checksum flag to stack From: Salil Mehta <redacted> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 13:09:45 +0000quoted
+ /* We only support checksum for IPv4,UDP(over IPv4 or IPv6),TCP(overquoted
+ * IPv4 or IPv6) and SCTP but we support many L3(IPv4, IPv6,MPLS,quoted
+ * PPPoE etc) and L4(TCP, UDP, GRE, SCTP, IGMP, ICMP etc.)protocols.quoted
+ * We want to filter out L3 and L4 protocols early on for whichchecksumquoted
+ * is not supported....quoted
+ */ + l3id = hnae_get_field(flag, HNS_RXD_L3ID_M, HNS_RXD_L3ID_S); + l4id = hnae_get_field(flag, HNS_RXD_L4ID_M, HNS_RXD_L4ID_S); + if ((l3id != HNS_RX_FLAG_L3ID_IPV4) && + ((l3id != HNS_RX_FLAG_L3ID_IPV6) || + (l4id != HNS_RX_FLAG_L4ID_UDP)) && + ((l3id != HNS_RX_FLAG_L3ID_IPV6) || + (l4id != HNS_RX_FLAG_L4ID_TCP)) && + (l4id != HNS_RX_FLAG_L4ID_SCTP)) + return;I have a hard time understanding this seemingly overcomplicated check. It looks like if L3 is IPV4 it will accept any underlying L4protocol,quoted
but is that what is really intended? That doesn't match what thisnewquoted
comment states.I agree that it is bit difficult to read. Earlier, I was banking on the register(mistakenly, its hardware implementation err ) to de-multiplex the checksum error type. The register supported indication of just IPv4 Header Checksum Error as well (which meant it could carry any L4 protocol). IPv6 does not have similar Header checksum error. Therefore, to check if it is just IPv4 Header checksum error or any supported L4 transport (UDP or TCP) error over IPv4 or IPv6 I had to bank upon above complex check Below suggested solution check would have been insufficient for example, if packet had IPv4/IGMP and there was a checksum error in IPv4 header. Comment states: " We only support checksum for IPv4, UDP(over IPv4 or IPv6), TCP(over IPv4 or IPv6) and SCTP" 1) Checksum of IPv4 (IPv4 header) 2) UDP(over IPv4 or IPv6) 3) TCP(over IPv4 or IPv6) 4) SCTP (over IPv4 or IPv6)* (*) I should have put IPv4/IPv6 check for SCTP in the code and made it clear in the comment as well?quoted
My understanding is that the chip supports checksums for: UDP/IPV4 UDP/IPV6 TCP/IPV4 TCP/IPV6 SCTP/IPV4 SCTP/IPV6Hardware also supports checksum of IPv4 Header.quoted
So the simplest thing is to validate each level one at a time: if (l3 != IPV4 && l3 != IPV6) return; if (l4 != UDP && l4 != TCP && l4 != SCTP) return;I guess above check will fail to catch cases like IPv4/IGMP, when there is a bad checksum in The IPv4 header. But maybe now since we don't have any method to de-multiplex the kind of checksum error (cannot depend upon register) we can have below code re-arrangement: hns_nic_rx_checksum() { /* check supported L3 protocol */ if (l3 != IPV4 && l3 != IPV6) return; /* check if L3 protocols error */ if (l3e) return; /* check if the packets are fragmented */ If (l3frags) Return; /* check supported L4 protocol */ if (l4 != UDP && l4 != TCP && l4 != SCTP) return;
Hi David, This logic might not do as well since IGMP packet with valid IP Checksum will be bypassed here. We would want to set CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY for such IP packets as well. It looks to me the cumbersome check in the PATCH V2 should be retained.
/* check if any L4 protocol error */
if (l3e)
return;
/* packet with valid checksum - covey to stack */
skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY
}Hope I am not missing something here. Please correct my understanding if there is any gap here. Thanks! Best regards Salil