On 6/13/24 1:18 PM, Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
On 12/06/2024 15:49, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 07:58:50 -0700 Vadim Fedorenko wrote:
@@ -1060,9 +1062,19 @@ int bpf_prog_test_run_skb(struct bpf_prog *prog, const union bpf_attr *kattr,
__skb_push(skb, hh_len);
if (is_direct_pkt_access)
bpf_compute_data_pointers(skb);
+
ret = convert___skb_to_skb(skb, ctx);
if (ret)
goto out;
+
+ if (kattr->test.flags & BPF_F_TEST_SKB_CHECKSUM_COMPLETE) {
+ const int off = skb_network_offset(skb);
+ int len = skb->len - off;
+
+ skb->csum = skb_checksum(skb, off, len, 0);
+ skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_COMPLETE;
+ }
Looks good, overall, although I'd be tempted to place this before
the L2 is pushed, a few lines up, so that we don't need to worry
about network offset. Then again, with you approach there is a nice
symmetry between the pre- and post- if blocks so either way is fine:
Reviewed-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx>
Could you please take a look and merge the series?
Looks good, done now, thanks Vadim!
