[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH v5] virtio-net: device does not deliver partially checksummed packet and may validate the checksum
Heng Qi <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.virtio-dev,dev.linux.lists.virtio-comment |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
在 2023/12/21 上午9:34, Jason Wang 写道: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 3:35 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 02:30:01PM +0800, Heng Qi wrote: >>> But why are we discussing this? >> I think basically at this point everyone is confused about what >> the feature does. right now we have packets >> with >> #define VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_NEEDS_CSUM 1 -> partial >> #define VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_DATA_VALID 2 -> unnecessary >> and packets without either -> none >> >> if both 1 and 2 are set then linux uses VIRTIO_NET_HDR_F_NEEDS_CSUM but >> I am not sure it's not a mistake. Maybe it does not matter. >> >> What does this new thing do? So far all we have is "XDP will turn it on" >> which is not really sufficient. I assumed it somehow replaces >> partial with complete. > It looks not? CHECKSUM_COMPLETE is less optimal than > CHECKSUM_UNNCESSARY as validation is still needed. > > If I understand correctly, this new thing wants DATA_VALID only. Disable NEEDS_CSUM or calculate fully checksummed packets to fully checksummed packets (how this is done does not matter). The driver will only receive two types of packets: CHECKSUM_NONE and DATA_VALID (CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY). Thanks! > > Thanks > > > >> That would make sense for many reasons, >> for example the checksum fields in the header can be reused >> for other purposes. But maybe not? >> >> >> -- >> MST >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]