| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20241210200759.GD2806@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 20:07:59 +0000
From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
Cc: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>,
"tom@...bertland.com" <tom@...bertland.com>,
Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>,
Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>,
Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>,
"andrew+netdev@...n.ch" <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"kuba@...nel.org" <kuba@...nel.org>,
"pabeni@...hat.com" <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Frank Li <frank.li@....com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"imx@...ts.linux.dev" <imx@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 RESEND net-next 1/5] net: enetc: add Rx checksum
offload for i.MX95 ENETC
On Tue, Dec 10, 2024 at 07:49:18AM +0000, Wei Fang wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@...sch.org>
> > Sent: 2024年12月8日 23:47
> > To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>; tom@...bertland.com
> > Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>; Claudiu Manoil
> > <claudiu.manoil@....com>; Vladimir Oltean <vladimir.oltean@....com>; Clark
> > Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>; andrew+netdev@...n.ch;
> > davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com; kuba@...nel.org;
> > pabeni@...hat.com; Frank Li <frank.li@....com>; netdev@...r.kernel.org;
> > linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; imx@...ts.linux.dev
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 RESEND net-next 1/5] net: enetc: add Rx checksum
> > offload for i.MX95 ENETC
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 12:45:02PM +0000, Wei Fang wrote:
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> > > > Sent: 2024年12月6日 20:31
> > > > To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
> > > > Cc: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>; Vladimir Oltean
> > > > <vladimir.oltean@....com>; Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>;
> > > > andrew+netdev@...n.ch; davem@...emloft.net; edumazet@...gle.com;
> > > > kuba@...nel.org; pabeni@...hat.com; Frank Li <frank.li@....com>;
> > > > netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; imx@...ts.linux.dev
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 RESEND net-next 1/5] net: enetc: add Rx checksum
> > > > offload for i.MX95 ENETC
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 10:33:15AM +0000, Wei Fang wrote:
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
> > > > > > Sent: 2024年12月6日 17:23
> > > > > > To: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
> > > > > > Cc: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>; Vladimir Oltean
> > > > > > <vladimir.oltean@....com>; Clark Wang <xiaoning.wang@....com>;
> > > > > > andrew+netdev@...n.ch; davem@...emloft.net;
> > edumazet@...gle.com;
> > > > > > kuba@...nel.org; pabeni@...hat.com; Frank Li <frank.li@....com>;
> > > > > > netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > imx@...ts.linux.dev
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 RESEND net-next 1/5] net: enetc: add Rx
> > checksum
> > > > > > offload for i.MX95 ENETC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2024 at 01:29:28PM +0800, Wei Fang wrote:
> > > > > > > ENETC rev 4.1 supports TCP and UDP checksum offload for receive, the
> > bit
> > > > > > > 108 of the Rx BD will be set if the TCP/UDP checksum is correct. Since
> > > > > > > this capability is not defined in register, the rx_csum bit is added to
> > > > > > > struct enetc_drvdata to indicate whether the device supports Rx
> > > > checksum
> > > > > > > offload.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <wei.fang@....com>
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>
> > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Claudiu Manoil <claudiu.manoil@....com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > v2: no changes
> > > > > > > v3: no changes
> > > > > > > v4: no changes
> > > > > > > v5: no changes
> > > > > > > v6: no changes
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c | 14
> > > > ++++++++++----
> > > > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.h | 2 ++
> > > > > > > drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_hw.h | 2 ++
> > > > > > > .../net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc_pf_common.c | 3 +++
> > > > > > > 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > > > > > > index 35634c516e26..3137b6ee62d3 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/enetc/enetc.c
> > > > > > > @@ -1011,10 +1011,15 @@ static void enetc_get_offloads(struct
> > > > enetc_bdr
> > > > > > *rx_ring,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /* TODO: hashing */
> > > > > > > if (rx_ring->ndev->features & NETIF_F_RXCSUM) {
> > > > > > > - u16 inet_csum = le16_to_cpu(rxbd->r.inet_csum);
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > - skb->csum = csum_unfold((__force
> > > > __sum16)~htons(inet_csum));
> > > > > > > - skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_COMPLETE;
> > > > > > > + if (priv->active_offloads & ENETC_F_RXCSUM &&
> > > > > > > + le16_to_cpu(rxbd->r.flags) &
> > > > ENETC_RXBD_FLAG_L4_CSUM_OK)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > > + skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY;
> > > > > > > + } else {
> > > > > > > + u16 inet_csum = le16_to_cpu(rxbd->r.inet_csum);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + skb->csum = csum_unfold((__force
> > > > __sum16)~htons(inet_csum));
> > > > > > > + skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_COMPLETE;
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Wei,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am wondering about the relationship between the above and
> > > > > > hardware support for CHECKSUM_COMPLETE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prior to this patch CHECKSUM_COMPLETE was always used, which seems
> > > > > > desirable. But with this patch, CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY is conditionally
> > > > used.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If those cases don't work with CHECKSUM_COMPLETE then is this a
> > > > bug-fix?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or, alternatively, if those cases do work with CHECKSUM_COMPLETE,
> > then
> > > > > > I'm unsure why this change is necessary or desirable. It's my
> > understanding
> > > > > > that from the Kernel's perspective CHECKSUM_COMPLETE is preferable
> > to
> > > > > > CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Rx checksum offload is a new feature of ENETC v4. We would like to exploit
> > > > this
> > > > > capability of the hardware to save CPU cycles in calculating and verifying
> > > > checksum.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Understood, but CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY is usually the preferred option
> > as
> > > > it
> > > > is more flexible, e.g. allowing low-cost calculation of inner checksums
> > > > in the presence of encapsulation.
> > >
> > > I think you mean 'CHECKSUM_COMPLETE' is the preferred option. But there is
> > no
> > > strong reason against using CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY. So I hope to keep this
> > patch.
> >
> > I was also under the impression that CHECKSUM_COMPLETE is more desirable
> > than CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY. Maybe Tom can help.
>
> From the kernel doc [1] it should be necessary to use CHECKSUM_COMPLETE in
> enetc driver, because ENETCv4 only supports UDP/TCP checksum offload. So I will
> drop this patch from the patch set. thanks.
Thanks.
>
> [1] https://docs.kernel.org/networking/skbuff.html#:~:text=Even%20if%20device%20supports%20only%20some%20protocols%2C%20but%20is%20able%20to%20produce%20skb%2D%3Ecsum%2C%20it%20MUST%20use%20CHECKSUM_COMPLETE%2C%20not%20CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists