This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] ip/udp checksum offload from minios guest

Thanks, this is all clear now. I was not setting NETTXF_data_validated along 
with NETTXF_csum_blank in my transmit path, which was confusing the backend.

Ian: yes the IPv4 checksum is of course only over the header. I wrote the code 
right, and then re-read it wrong while hacking on a flight :) The ICMP errors 
confused me (since I was setting NETTXF_csum_blank for those too and the 
checksum functions error out).

On 29 Mar 2011, at 15:19, Paul Durrant wrote:

> Maybe there's some confusion of terms here... There are 2 checksums: the IPv4 
> header and UDP checksum.
> The IPv4 header checksum must *always* be calculated by the frontend.
> If NETTXF_csum_blank is set (implying NETTXF_data_validated must also be set) 
> then the UDP checksum must be set to cover the UDP pseudo-header since the 
> SKB will be marked CSUM_PARTIAL and thus any h/w driver it is presented to 
> will expect the pseudo-header checksum to be valid. If the SKB is presented 
> to another guest then CSUM_PARTIAL will translated into 
> NETRXF_csum_blank|NETRXF_data_validated and the frontend is at liberty to 
> present it up the stack as being checksum-valid without anything in the 
> datapath having had to walk over the payload to actually calculate the value 
> of that checksum.
>  Paul
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-
>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anil Madhavapeddy
>> Sent: 29 March 2011 18:16
>> To: Ian Campbell
>> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] ip/udp checksum offload from minios guest
>> On 29 Mar 2011, at 12:37, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-03-29 at 17:17 +0100, Anil Madhavapeddy wrote:
>>>> I'm just adding checksum offload support into a custom guest, and
>> wanted to clarify a few things.
>>>> In netfront, I can mark outgoing frames with:
>>>> - NETTXF_csum_blank
>>>> - NETTXF_data_validated
>>>> These refer to UDP or TCP checksums, and not the IP checksum,
>> right?
>>>> Linux seems to never offload IP header checksumming, so it must
>> be
>>>> offloading the UDP/TCP calculation and then adjusting the IPv4
>>>> checksum based on that calculation.
>>>> For outgoing UDP, my guest is setting the checksum to 0 (as it's
>>>> optional in the protocol), and calculating the full IPv4 checksum
>> in
>>>> software, and all works (slowly).  However, setting
>> NETTXF_csum_blank
>>>> in the outgoing frame and leaving the IPv4 checksum at 0 doesn't
>> seem
>>>> to result in any adjustment by netback, and the packet gets
>> dropped.
>>> I think you need to set the checksum to the psuedo-header checksum
>>> rather than 0 since that is what csum_blank means (such a well
>> named
>>> flag!)...
>>> It's not clear why anything would drop a UDP frame with
>> checksum==0
>>> since, as you say, it is optional. My guess is that since the
>>> NETTXF_csum_blank and data_validated turn into an skb->ip_summed
>> ==
>>> SKB_PARTIAL on the backend side this causes the Linux network
>> stack to
>>> drop it because that statement conflicts with the checksum being
>> 0.
>> Right, but I'm setting the IPv4 checksum to 0 too, since I want to
>> offload the whole lot and never calculate a body checksum in the
>> guest.  But if the UDP checksum is set to 0, then the backend can't
>> just adjust it to obtain the IPv4 checksum and has to iterate over
>> the packet body at some stage.
>> I've tried setting the UDP checksum to 0, the pseudoheader, and the
>> full checksum, and the IPv4 checksum is never set by the backend in
>> any of these cases.  If I set the IPv4 checksum in software to the
>> correct value, then packets go through, but the UDP checksums are
>> never altered.
>> Guess it's time to start slapping printfs all over the dom0 kernel
>> to see what's going on unless you know what I "should" be setting
>> both the IPv4/UDP checksums to with NETTXF_csum_blank...
>> Anil
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Xen-devel mailing list