From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@intel.com>,
bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@linux.dev>,
Song Liu <song@kernel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@fb.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@kernel.org>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>, Hao Luo <haoluo@google.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
Anatoly Burakov <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@intel.com>,
Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@gmail.com>,
Maryam Tahhan <mtahhan@redhat.com>,
xdp-hints@xdp-project.net,
Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Simon Horman <simon.horman@corigine.com>
Subject: [xdp-hints] Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 12/21] xdp: Add checksum hint
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 09:13:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <64c661de227c2_11bfb629493@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAADnVQ+vn0=1UT5_c628ovq+LzfrNFf0MxmZn++NqeUFJ-ykQw@mail.gmail.com>
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 9:15 AM Willem de Bruijn
> <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 07:39:14PM +0200, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +union xdp_csum_info {
> > > > + /* Checksum referred to by ``csum_start + csum_offset`` is considered
> > > > + * valid, but was never calculated, TX device has to do this,
> > > > + * starting from csum_start packet byte.
> > > > + * Any preceding checksums are also considered valid.
> > > > + * Available, if ``status == XDP_CHECKSUM_PARTIAL``.
> > > > + */
> > > > + struct {
> > > > + u16 csum_start;
> > > > + u16 csum_offset;
> > > > + };
> > > > +
> > >
> > > CHECKSUM_PARTIAL makes sense on TX, but this RX. I don't see in the above.
> >
> > It can be observed on RX when packets are looped.
> >
> > This may be observed even in XDP on veth.
>
> veth and XDP is a broken combination. GSO packets coming out of containers
> cannot be parsed properly by XDP.
> It was added mainly for testing. Just like "generic XDP".
> bpf progs at skb layer is much better fit for veth.
Ok. Still, seems forward looking and little cost to define the
constant?
> > > > + /* Checksum, calculated over the whole packet.
> > > > + * Available, if ``status & XDP_CHECKSUM_COMPLETE``.
> > > > + */
> > > > + u32 checksum;
> > >
> > > imo XDP RX should only support XDP_CHECKSUM_COMPLETE with u32 checksum
> > > or XDP_CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY.
> > >
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +enum xdp_csum_status {
> > > > + /* HW had parsed several transport headers and validated their
> > > > + * checksums, same as ``CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY`` in ``sk_buff``.
> > > > + * 3 least significant bytes contain number of consecutive checksums,
> > > > + * starting with the outermost, reported by hardware as valid.
> > > > + * ``sk_buff`` checksum level (``csum_level``) notation is provided
> > > > + * for driver developers.
> > > > + */
> > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_LVL0 = 1, /* 1 outermost checksum */
> > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_LVL1 = 2, /* 2 outermost checksums */
> > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_LVL2 = 3, /* 3 outermost checksums */
> > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_LVL3 = 4, /* 4 outermost checksums */
> > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_NUM_MASK = GENMASK(2, 0),
> > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID = XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_NUM_MASK,
> > >
> > > I don't see what bpf prog suppose to do with these levels.
> > > The driver should pick between 3:
> > > XDP_CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY, XDP_CHECKSUM_COMPLETE, XDP_CHECKSUM_NONE.
> > >
> > > No levels and no anything partial. please.
> >
> > This levels business is an unfortunate side effect of
> > CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY. For a packet with multiple checksum fields, what
> > does the boolean actually mean? With these levels, at least that is
> > well defined: the first N checksum fields.
>
> If I understand this correctly this is intel specific feature that
> other NICs don't have. skb layer also doesn't have such concept.
> The driver should say CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY when it's sure
> or don't pretend that it checks the checksum and just say NONE.
I did not know how much this was used, but quick grep for non constant
csum_level shows devices from at least six vendors.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-30 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-28 15:44 [xdp-hints] (no subject) Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 01/21] ice: make RX hash reading code more reusable Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 02/21] ice: make RX HW timestamp " Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 03/21] ice: make RX checksum checking " Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 04/21] ice: Make ptype internal to descriptor info processing Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 05/21] ice: Introduce ice_xdp_buff Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 06/21] ice: Support HW timestamp hint Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 07/21] ice: Support RX hash XDP hint Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 08/21] ice: Support XDP hints in AF_XDP ZC mode Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 09/21] xdp: Add VLAN tag hint Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 10/21] ice: Implement " Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 11/21] ice: use VLAN proto from ring packet context in skb path Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 12/21] xdp: Add checksum hint Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 21:53 ` [xdp-hints] " Alexei Starovoitov
2023-07-29 16:15 ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-07-29 18:04 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-07-30 13:13 ` Willem de Bruijn [this message]
2023-07-31 10:52 ` Larysa Zaremba
2023-08-01 1:03 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2023-08-02 13:27 ` Willem de Bruijn
2023-08-07 15:03 ` Larysa Zaremba
2023-08-07 15:32 ` Larysa Zaremba
2023-08-07 17:06 ` Stanislav Fomichev
2023-07-31 16:43 ` Jakub Kicinski
2023-08-07 15:08 ` Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 13/21] ice: Implement " Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 21:02 ` [xdp-hints] " kernel test robot
2023-07-28 21:02 ` kernel test robot
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 14/21] selftests/bpf: Allow VLAN packets in xdp_hw_metadata Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 15/21] net, xdp: allow metadata > 32 Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 16/21] selftests/bpf: Add flags and new hints to xdp_hw_metadata Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 17/21] veth: Implement VLAN tag and checksum XDP hint Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-29 22:13 ` [xdp-hints] " kernel test robot
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 18/21] net: make vlan_get_tag() return -ENODATA instead of -EINVAL Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 19/21] selftests/bpf: Use AF_INET for TX in xdp_metadata Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 20/21] selftests/bpf: Check VLAN tag and proto " Larysa Zaremba
2023-07-28 17:39 ` [xdp-hints] [PATCH bpf-next v4 21/21] selftests/bpf: check checksum state " Larysa Zaremba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://lists.xdp-project.net/postorius/lists/xdp-hints.xdp-project.net/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=64c661de227c2_11bfb629493@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch \
--to=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
--cc=alexandr.lobakin@intel.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
--cc=haoluo@google.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=kpsingh@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=larysa.zaremba@intel.com \
--cc=magnus.karlsson@gmail.com \
--cc=martin.lau@linux.dev \
--cc=mtahhan@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=simon.horman@corigine.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
--cc=xdp-hints@xdp-project.net \
--cc=yhs@fb.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox