Message-ID: <a263d63e-f043-755b-d4a4-82fdc01bf23a@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 15 Nov 2018 20:52:23 -0800
From:   Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch net] net: invert the check of detecting hardware RX
 checksum fault



On 11/15/2018 06:23 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 5:52 PM Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 03:16:02PM -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> The following evidences indicate this check is likely wrong:
>>>
>>> 1. In the assignment "skb->csum_valid = !sum", sum==0 indicates a valid checksum.
>>>
>>> 2. __skb_checksum_complete() always returns sum, and TCP packets are dropped
>>>    only when it returns non-zero. So non-zero indicates a failure.
>>>
>>> 3. In __skb_checksum_validate_complete(), we have a nearly same check, where
>>>    zero is considered as success.
>>>
>>> 4. csum_fold() already does the one’s complement, this indicates 0 should
>>>    be considered as a successful validation.
>>>
>>> 5. We have triggered this fault for many times, but InCsumErrors field in
>>>    /proc/net/snmp remains 0.
>>>
>>> Base on the above, non-zero should be used as a checksum mismatch.
>>>
>>> I tested this with mlx5 driver, no warning or InCsumErrors after 1 hour.
>>>
>>> Fixes: fb286bb2990a ("[NET]: Detect hardware rx checksum faults correctly")
>>> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
>>> Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
>>> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>  net/core/datagram.c | 4 ++--
>>>  net/core/dev.c      | 2 +-
>>>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/core/datagram.c b/net/core/datagram.c
>>> index 57f3a6fcfc1e..e542a9a212a7 100644
>>> --- a/net/core/datagram.c
>>> +++ b/net/core/datagram.c
>>> @@ -733,7 +733,7 @@ __sum16 __skb_checksum_complete_head(struct sk_buff *skb, int len)
>>>       __sum16 sum;
>>>
>>>       sum = csum_fold(skb_checksum(skb, 0, len, skb->csum));
>>> -     if (likely(!sum)) {
>>> +     if (unlikely(sum)) {
>>>               if (unlikely(skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_COMPLETE) &&
>>>                   !skb->csum_complete_sw)
>>>                       netdev_rx_csum_fault(skb->dev);
>>
>> Normally if the hardware's partial checksum is valid then we just
>> trust it and send the packet along.  However, if the partial
>> checksum is invalid we don't trust it and we will compute the
>> whole checksum manually which is what ends up in sum.
> 
> Not sure if I understand partial checksum here, but it is the
> CHECKSUM_COMPLETE case which I am trying to fix, not
> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL.
> 
> Or you mean the checksum returned by skb_checksum(), that is,
> checksum from skb->data to skb->data+skb->len.
> 
> If neither, I am confused.
> 
>>
>> netdev_rx_csum_fault is meant to warn about the situation where
>> a packet with a valid checksum (i.e., sum == 0) was given to us
>> by the hardware with a partial checksum that was invalid.
>>
>> So changing it to sum here is wrong.
>>
> 
> So, in other word, a checksum *match* is the intended to detect
> this HW RX checksum fault?
> 
> What has been changed in between skb_checksum_init() and
> tcp_checksum_complete() so that the logic is inverted?
> 
> Looks like I miss something too obvious to understand the logic. :-/
> 
> 
> 
>> Can you give more information as to how you got the warnings with
>> mlx5? It sounds like there may be a real bug there because if you
>> are getting the warning then it means that a packet with an invalid
>> hardware-computed partial checksum passed the manual check and
>> was actually valid.  This implies that either the hardware or the
>> driver is broken.
> 
> Sure, my case is nearly same with Pawel's, except I have no vlan:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=154086647601721&w=2
> 
> None of us has RXFCS, if you are curious whether Eric's fix works
> for us.
> 
> There are also a few other reports with conntrack involved:
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=154134983130200&w=2
> https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=154070099731902&w=2


It is very possible NIC provides an incorrect CHECKSUM_COMPLETE, in the
case non zero trailer bytes were added by a buggy switch (or host)

Saeed can comment/confirm, but the theory is that the NIC does header analysis and
computes a checksum only on the bytes of the IP frame, not including the tail bytes
that were added by a switch.

You could use trafgen to cook such a frame and confirm the theory.

Something like :

{
  0x00, 0x1a, 0x11, 0xc3, 0x0d, 0x45,  # MAC Destination
  0x00, 0x12, 0xc0, 0x02, 0xac, 0x5a,  # MAC Source
  const16(0x0800),

  /* IPv4 Version, IHL, TOS */
  0b01000101, 0,
  /* IPv4 Total Len */
  const16(40),
  /* IPv4 Ident */
  //drnd(2),
  const16(2),

  /* IPv4 Flags, Frag Off */
  0b01000000, 0,
  /* IPv4 TTL */
  64,
  /* Proto TCP */
  0x06,
  /* IPv4 Checksum (IP header from, to) */
  csumip(14, 33),

  7, drnd(3), # Source IP
  10,246,7,152,       # Dest IP

  /* TCP Source Port */
  drnd(2),
  /* TCP Dest Port */
  const16(80),
  /* TCP Sequence Number */
  drnd(4),
  /* TCP Ackn. Number */
  c32(0),

  /* TCP Header length + Flags */
  const16((0x5 << 12) | 2)		/* TCP SYN Flag */

  /* Window Size */
  const16(16),
  /* TCP Checksum (offset IP, offset TCP) */
  csumtcp(14, 34),

  11,22,33,44,55,66, /* PAD */
}

Powered by blists - more mailing lists