Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 3:56 AM Larysa Zaremba <larysa.zaremba@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 09:13:02AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 9:15 AM Willem de Bruijn
> > > > <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 07:39:14PM +0200, Larysa Zaremba wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +union xdp_csum_info {
> > > > > > > + /* Checksum referred to by ``csum_start + csum_offset`` is considered
> > > > > > > + * valid, but was never calculated, TX device has to do this,
> > > > > > > + * starting from csum_start packet byte.
> > > > > > > + * Any preceding checksums are also considered valid.
> > > > > > > + * Available, if ``status == XDP_CHECKSUM_PARTIAL``.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + struct {
> > > > > > > + u16 csum_start;
> > > > > > > + u16 csum_offset;
> > > > > > > + };
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CHECKSUM_PARTIAL makes sense on TX, but this RX. I don't see in the above.
> > > > >
> > > > > It can be observed on RX when packets are looped.
> > > > >
> > > > > This may be observed even in XDP on veth.
> > > >
> > > > veth and XDP is a broken combination. GSO packets coming out of containers
> > > > cannot be parsed properly by XDP.
> > > > It was added mainly for testing. Just like "generic XDP".
> > > > bpf progs at skb layer is much better fit for veth.
> > >
> > > Ok. Still, seems forward looking and little cost to define the
> > > constant?
> > >
> >
> > +1
> > CHECKSUM_PARTIAL is mostly for testing and removing/adding it doesn't change
> > anything from the perspective of the user that does not use it, so I think it is
> > worth having.
>
> "little cost to define the constant".
> Not really. A constant in UAPI is a heavy burden.
>
> > > > > > > + /* Checksum, calculated over the whole packet.
> > > > > > > + * Available, if ``status & XDP_CHECKSUM_COMPLETE``.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + u32 checksum;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > imo XDP RX should only support XDP_CHECKSUM_COMPLETE with u32 checksum
> > > > > > or XDP_CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +};
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +enum xdp_csum_status {
> > > > > > > + /* HW had parsed several transport headers and validated their
> > > > > > > + * checksums, same as ``CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY`` in ``sk_buff``.
> > > > > > > + * 3 least significant bytes contain number of consecutive checksums,
> > > > > > > + * starting with the outermost, reported by hardware as valid.
> > > > > > > + * ``sk_buff`` checksum level (``csum_level``) notation is provided
> > > > > > > + * for driver developers.
> > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_LVL0 = 1, /* 1 outermost checksum */
> > > > > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_LVL1 = 2, /* 2 outermost checksums */
> > > > > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_LVL2 = 3, /* 3 outermost checksums */
> > > > > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_LVL3 = 4, /* 4 outermost checksums */
> > > > > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_NUM_MASK = GENMASK(2, 0),
> > > > > > > + XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID = XDP_CHECKSUM_VALID_NUM_MASK,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't see what bpf prog suppose to do with these levels.
> > > > > > The driver should pick between 3:
> > > > > > XDP_CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY, XDP_CHECKSUM_COMPLETE, XDP_CHECKSUM_NONE.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No levels and no anything partial. please.
> > > > >
> > > > > This levels business is an unfortunate side effect of
> > > > > CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY. For a packet with multiple checksum fields, what
> > > > > does the boolean actually mean? With these levels, at least that is
> > > > > well defined: the first N checksum fields.
> > > >
> > > > If I understand this correctly this is intel specific feature that
> > > > other NICs don't have. skb layer also doesn't have such concept.
> >
> > Please look into csum_level field in sk_buff. It is not the most used property
> > in the kernel networking code, but it is certainly 1. used by networking stack
> > 2. set to non-zero value by many vendors.
> >
> > So you do not need to search yourself, I'll copy-paste the docs for
> > CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY here:
> >
> > * %CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY is applicable to following protocols:
> > *
> > * - TCP: IPv6 and IPv4.
> > * - UDP: IPv4 and IPv6. A device may apply CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY to a
> > * zero UDP checksum for either IPv4 or IPv6, the networking stack
> > * may perform further validation in this case.
> > * - GRE: only if the checksum is present in the header.
> > * - SCTP: indicates the CRC in SCTP header has been validated.
> > * - FCOE: indicates the CRC in FC frame has been validated.
> > *
> >
> > Please, look at this:
> >
> > * &sk_buff.csum_level indicates the number of consecutive checksums found in
> > * the packet minus one that have been verified as %CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY.
> > * For instance if a device receives an IPv6->UDP->GRE->IPv4->TCP packet
> > * and a device is able to verify the checksums for UDP (possibly zero),
> > * GRE (checksum flag is set) and TCP, &sk_buff.csum_level would be set to
> > * two. If the device were only able to verify the UDP checksum and not
> > * GRE, either because it doesn't support GRE checksum or because GRE
> > * checksum is bad, skb->csum_level would be set to zero (TCP checksum is
> > * not considered in this case).
> >
> > From:
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.5-rc4/source/include/linux/skbuff.h#L115
> >
> > > > The driver should say CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY when it's sure
> > > > or don't pretend that it checks the checksum and just say NONE.
> > >
> >
> > Well, in such case, most of the NICs that use CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY would have to
> > return CHECKSUM_NONE instead, because based on my quick search, they mostly
> > return checksum level of 0 (no tunneling detected) or 1 (tunneling detected),
> > so they only parse headers up to a certain depth, meaning it's not possible
> > to tell whether there isn't another CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY-eligible header hiding
> > in the payload, so those NIC cannot guarantee ALL the checksums present in the
> > packet are correct. So, by your logic, we should make e.g. AF_XDP user re-check
> > already verified checksums themselves, because HW "doesn't pretend that it
> > checks the checksum and just says NONE".
> >
> > > I did not know how much this was used, but quick grep for non constant
> > > csum_level shows devices from at least six vendors.
> >
> > Yes, there are several vendors that set the csum_level, including broadcom
> > (bnxt) and mellanox (mlx4 and mlx5).
> >
> > Also, CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY is found in 100+ drivers/net/ethernet files,
> > while csum_level is in like 20, which means overwhelming majority of
> > CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY NICs actually stay with the default checksum level of '0'
> > (they check only the outermost checksum - anything else needs to be verified by
> > the networking stack).
>
> No. What I'm saying is that XDP_CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY should be
> equivalent to skb's CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY with csum_level = 0.
> I'm well aware that some drivers are trying to be smart and put csum_level=1.
> There is no use case for it in XDP.
> "But our HW supports it so XDP prog should read it" is the reason NOT
> to expose it to bpf in generic api.
>
> Either we're doing per-driver kfuncs and no common infra or common kfunc
> that covers 99% of the drivers. Which is CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY && csum_level = 0
>
> It's not acceptable to present a generic api to xdp prog with multi level
> csum that only works on a specific HW. Next thing there will be new flags
> and MAX_CSUM_LEVEL in XDP features.
> Pretending to be generic while being HW specific is the worst interface.
Ok. Agreed that without it we still cover 99% of the use cases. Fine to drop.
