Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: unbreak cusmed packet for small buffer XDP
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Date: 2017-06-28 03:40:47
Also in:
lkml, virtualization
On 2017年06月28日 11:31, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:45:18AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:quoted
On 2017年06月28日 10:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:quoted
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:14:34AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:quoted
On 2017年06月28日 10:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:quoted
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 09:54:03AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:quoted
We should allow csumed packet for small buffer, otherwise XDP_PASS won't work correctly. Fixes commit bb91accf2733 ("virtio-net: XDP support for small buffers") Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@redhat.com>The issue would be VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_DATA_VALID might be set. What do you think?I think it's safe. For XDP_PASS, it work like in the past.That's the part I don't get. With DATA_VALID csum in packet is wrong, XDP tools assume it's value.DATA_VALID is CHECKSUM_UNCESSARY on the host, and according to the comment in skbuff.h " * The hardware you're dealing with doesn't calculate the full checksum * (as in CHECKSUM_COMPLETE), but it does parse headers and verify checksums * for specific protocols. For such packets it will set CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY * if their checksums are okay. skb->csum is still undefined in this case * though. A driver or device must never modify the checksum field in the * packet even if checksum is verified. " The csum is correct I believe? ThanksThat's on input. But I think for tun it's output, where that is equivalent to CHECKSUM_NONE
Yes, but the comment said: " CKSUM_NONE: * * The skb was already checksummed by the protocol, or a checksum is not * required. * * CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY: * * This has the same meaning on as CHECKSUM_NONE for checksum offload on * output. * " So still correct I think? Thanks _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization