On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 10:04 PM maowenan <maowe...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > On 2019/1/29 12:01, Tom Herbert wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 7:00 PM maowenan <maowe...@huawei.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi all， > >> Do you have any comments about this change? > >> > >> > >> On 2019/1/23 11:33, Mao Wenan wrote: > >>> When udp4_gro_receive() get one packet that uh->check=0, > >>> skb_gro_checksum_validate_zero_check() will set the > >>> skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY; > >>> skb->csum_level = 0; > >>> Then udp_gro_receive() will flush the packet which is not > >>> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL, > >>> It is not our expect, because check=0 in udp header indicates this > >>> packet is no need to caculate checksum, we should go further to do GRO. > >>> > >>> This patch changes the value of csum_cnt according to skb->csum_level. > >>> --- > >>> include/linux/netdevice.h | 1 + > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/include/linux/netdevice.h b/include/linux/netdevice.h > >>> index 1377d08..9c819f1 100644 > >>> --- a/include/linux/netdevice.h > >>> +++ b/include/linux/netdevice.h > >>> @@ -2764,6 +2764,7 @@ static inline void > >>> skb_gro_incr_csum_unnecessary(struct sk_buff *skb) > >>> * during GRO. This saves work if we fallback to normal > >>> path. > >>> */ > >>> __skb_incr_checksum_unnecessary(skb); > >>> + NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->csum_cnt = skb->csum_level + 1; > > > > That doesn't look right. This would be reinitializing the GRO > > checksums from the beginning. > > > >>> } > >>> } > >>> > >>> > >> > > I assume the code is bailing on this conditional: > > > > if (NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->encap_mark || > > (skb->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_PARTIAL && > > NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->csum_cnt == 0 && > > !NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->csum_valid) || > > !udp_sk(sk)->gro_receive) > > goto out_unlock; > > > > I am trying to remember why this needs to check csum_cnt. If there was > > a csum_cnt for the UDP csum being zero from checksum-unnecessary, it > > was consumed by skb_gro_checksum_validate_zero_check in UDP4 GRO > > received. > > We have met the scene about two VMs in different host with vxlan packets, > when udp4_gro_receive receives > one packet with ip_summed=CHECKSUM_NONE,csum_cnt=0,csum_valid=0,and > udp->check=0, then skb_gro_checksum_validate_zero_check()-> > skb_gro_incr_csum_unnecessary() validate it and set > ip_summed=CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY,csum_level=0, but csum_cnt and csum_valid > keep zero value. Then it will be flushed in udp_gro_receive(), the codes as > you have showed. > > so I think it forgets to modify csum_cnt since csum_level is changed in > skb_gro_incr_csum_unnecessary()->__skb_incr_checksum_unnecessary(). > Yes, but the csum_level is changing since we've gone beyond the checksums initially reported inc checksum-unnecessary. GRO csum_cnt is initialized to skb->csum_level + 1 at the start of GRO processing.
If I recall, the rule is that UDP GRO requires at least one non-zero checksum to be verified. The idea is that if we end up computing packet checksums on the host for inner checksums like TCP during GRO, then that's negating the performance benefits of GRO. Had UDP check not been zero then we would do checksum unnecessary conversion and so csum_valid would be set for the remainded of GRO processing. The existing code is following the rule I believe, so this may be working as intended. Tom > > > > . > > >
