[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070308231556.GE30703@austin.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:15:56 -0600
From: linas@...tin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas)
To: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...ox.com>
Cc: Norbert Eicker <n.eicker@...juelich.de>,
Jens Osterkamp <jens@...ibm.com>,
Kou Ishizaki <kou.ishizaki@...hiba.co.jp>,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] spidernet: Fix problem sending IP fragments
Jeff,
Please apply. The rather long patch description is from the submitter,
Norbert Eicker, I don't know if that's alright, or if I should ask to
have it trimmed.
Thanks,
--linas
From: Norbert Eicker <n.eicker@...juelich.de>
I found out that the spidernet-driver is unable to send fragmented IP
frames.
Let me just recall the basic structure of "normal" UDP/IP/Ethernet
frames (that actually work):
- It starts with the Ethernet header (dest MAC, src MAC, etc.)
- The next part is occupied by the IP header (version info, length of
packet, id=0, fragment offset=0, checksum, from / to address, etc.)
- Then comes the UDP header (src / dest port, length, checksum)
- Actual payload
- Ethernet checksum
Now what's different for IP fragment:
- The IP header has id set to some value (same for all fragments),
offset is set appropriately (i.e. 0 for first fragment, following
according to size of other fragments), size is the length of the frame.
- UDP header is unchanged. I.e. length is according to full UDP
datagram, not just the part within the actual frame! But this is only
true within the first frame: all following frames don't have a valid
UDP-header at all.
The spidernet silicon seems to be quite intelligent: It's able to
compute (IP / UDP / Ethernet) checksums on the fly and tests if frames
are conforming to RFC -- at least conforming to RFC on complete frames.
But IP fragments are different as explained above:
I.e. for IP fragments containing part of a UDP datagram it sees
incompatible length in the headers for IP and UDP in the first frame
and, thus, skips this frame. But the content *is* correct for IP
fragments. For all following frames it finds (most probably) no valid
UDP header at all. But this *is* also correct for IP fragments.
The Linux IP-stack seems to be clever in this point. It expects the
spidernet to calculate the checksum (since the module claims to be able
to do so) and marks the skb's for "normal" frames accordingly
(ip_summed set to CHECKSUM_HW).
But for the IP fragments it does not expect the driver to be capable to
handle the frames appropriately. Thus all checksums are allready
computed. This is also flaged within the skb (ip_summed set to
CHECKSUM_NONE).
Unfortunately the spidernet driver ignores that hints. It tries to send
the IP fragments of UDP datagrams as normal UDP/IP frames. Since they
have different structure the silicon detects them the be not
"well-formed" and skips them.
The following one-liner against 2.6.21-rc2 changes this behavior. If the
IP-stack claims to have done the checksumming, the driver should not
try to checksum (and analyze) the frame but send it as is.
Signed-off-by: Norbert Eicker <n.eicker@...juelich.de>
Signed-off-by: Linas Vepstas <linas@...tin.ibm.com>
----
diff --git a/drivers/net/spider_net.c b/drivers/net/spider_net.c
index 3b91af8..31507ac 100644
drivers/net/spider_net.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.20-git16/drivers/net/spider_net.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.20-git16.orig/drivers/net/spider_net.c 2007-03-01 13:39:14.000000000 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.20-git16/drivers/net/spider_net.c 2007-03-01 18:14:51.000000000 -0600
@@ -719,7 +719,7 @@ spider_net_prepare_tx_descr(struct spide
SPIDER_NET_DESCR_CARDOWNED | SPIDER_NET_DMAC_NOCS;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chain->lock, flags);
- if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IP))
+ if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IP) && skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_PARTIAL)
switch (skb->nh.iph->protocol) {
case IPPROTO_TCP:
hwdescr->dmac_cmd_status |= SPIDER_NET_DMAC_TCP;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists