All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: George Prekas <prekageo@amazon.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>,
	Wenzhuo Lu <wenzhuo.lu@intel.com>,
	 Beilei Xing <beilei.xing@intel.com>,
	Bernard Iremonger <bernard.iremonger@intel.com>
Cc: <dev@dpdk.org>, Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>,
	"George Prekas (prekageo)" <prekageo@amazon.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] app/testpmd: fix IP checksum calculation
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 08:20:29 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f2062f71-0625-ebe7-4469-0a5513368153@amazon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6a84a356-191a-fca6-607f-3caf88eb3da6@intel.com>

On 1/7/2021 5:32 AM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
> On 1/7/2021 5:39 AM, George Prekas wrote:
>> On 1/6/2021 12:02 PM, Ferruh Yigit wrote:
>>> On 12/5/2020 5:42 AM, George Prekas wrote:
>>>> Strict-aliasing rules are violated by cast to uint16_t* in flowgen.c
>>>> and the calculated IP checksum is wrong on GCC 9 and GCC 10.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: George Prekas <prekageo@amazon.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v2:
>>>> * Instead of a compiler barrier, use a compiler flag.
>>>> ---
>>>>    app/test-pmd/meson.build | 1 +
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/app/test-pmd/meson.build b/app/test-pmd/meson.build
>>>> index 7e9c7bdd6..5d24e807f 100644
>>>> --- a/app/test-pmd/meson.build
>>>> +++ b/app/test-pmd/meson.build
>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>>>>    # override default name to drop the hyphen
>>>>    name = 'testpmd'
>>>>    cflags += '-Wno-deprecated-declarations'
>>>> +cflags += '-fno-strict-aliasing'
>>>>    sources = files('5tswap.c',
>>>>        'cmdline.c',
>>>>        'cmdline_flow.c',
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi George,
>>>
>>> I am trying to understand this, the relevant code is as below:
>>> ip_hdr->hdr_checksum = ip_sum((unaligned_uint16_t *)ip_hdr, sizeof(*ip_hdr));
>>>
>>> You are suspicious of strict aliasing rule violation, with more details:
>>> The concern is the "struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ip_hdr;" aliased to "const
>>> unaligned_uint16_t *hdr", and compiler can optimize out the calculations using
>>> data pointed by 'hdr' pointer, since the 'hdr' pointer is not used to alter the
>>> data and compiler may think data is not changed at all.
>>>
>>> 1) But the pointer "hdr" is assigned in the loop, from another pointer whose
>>> content is changing, why this is not helping to figure out that the data 'hdr'
>>> pointing is changed.
>>>
>>> 2) I tried to debug this, but I am not able to reproduce the issue, 'ip_sum()'
>>> called each time and checksum calculated correctly. Using gcc 10.2.1-9. Can you
>>> able to confirm the case with debug, or from the assembly/object file?
>>>
>>>
>>> And if the issue is strict aliasing rule violation as you said, compiler flag is
>>> an option but not sure how much it reduces the compiler optimization benefit, I
>>> guess other options also not so good, memcpy brings too much work on runtime and
>>> union requires bigger change and makes code complex.
>>> I wonder if making 'ip_sum()' a non inline function can help, can you please
>>> give a try since you can reproduce it?
>>
>> Hi Ferruh,
>>
>> Thanks for looking into it.
>>
>> I am copy-pasting at the end of this email a minimal reproduction. It calculates a checksum and prints it. The correct value is f8d9. If you compile it with -O0 or -O3 -fno-strict-aliasing, you will get the correct value. If you compile it with gcc (Ubuntu 9.3.0-17ubuntu1~20.04) 9.3.0 and -O3, you will get f8e8. You can also try it on https://godbolt.org/ and see how different versions behave.
>>
>> My understanding is that the code violates the C standard (https://stackoverflow.com/a/99010).
>>
> 
> Thanks for the sample code below, I copied to the godbolt:
> https://godbolt.org/z/6fMK19
> 
> In gcc 10, the checksum calculation is done during compilation (when
> optimization is enabled) and the value is returned directly:
> mov    $0xffed,%esi
> 
> Since a calculation is happening I assume the compiler knows about the aliasing
> and OK with it.

According to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/: "if compiling with -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv
-fno-aggressive-loop-optimizations makes a difference ... then your code is probably not
correct"

> 
> But that optimized calculation seems wrong, when it is disabled [1] the checksum
> is correct again.
> 
> [1] all following seems helping to disable compile time calculation
> - disabling optimization
> - putting a compiler barrier
> - putting a 'printf' inside 'ip_sum()'
> - fno-strict-aliasing
> 
> gcc 8 & 9 is not doing this compile time calculation, hence they are not affected.

I just checked gcc 8.3 and gcc 9.3 on godbolt and I got f8e8 (which is wrong; the correct
is f8d9). 

> 
> This feels like an optimization issue in gcc10, but not sure exactly on the root
> cause, and how to disable it properly in our case.

I've tried with __attribute__ ((noinline)) and it fixes the problem. But keep in mind
that we are dealing with broken C code. This attribute just prevents the optimization that
reveals the problem. It does not guarantee that the problem will not reappear in a future
compiler version.

I've also tried to use a union as suggested by Stephen Hemminger and it works correctly but
it requires significant code changes: you have to copy paste the IP header structure inside
a union and access it only through the union.

As a side note, here is a piece of opinion from Linus Torvalds regarding strict aliasing:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/6/5/769

DPDK already uses -fno-strict-aliasing for librte_node and librte_vhost.

> 
>> --- cut here ---
>>
>> #include <stdint.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <string.h>
>>
>> struct rte_ipv4_hdr {
>>       uint8_t  version_ihl;
>>       uint8_t  type_of_service;
>>       uint16_t total_length;
>>       uint16_t packet_id;
>>       uint16_t fragment_offset;
>>       uint8_t  time_to_live;
>>       uint8_t  next_proto_id;
>>       uint16_t hdr_checksum;
>>       uint32_t src_addr;
>>       uint32_t dst_addr;
>> };
>>
>> static inline uint16_t ip_sum(const uint16_t *hdr, int hdr_len)
>> {
>>       uint32_t sum = 0;
>>
>>       while (hdr_len > 1)
>>       {
>>               sum += *hdr++;
>>               if (sum & 0x80000000)
>>                       sum = (sum & 0xFFFF) + (sum >> 16);
>>               hdr_len -= 2;
>>       }
>>
>>       while (sum >> 16)
>>               sum = (sum & 0xFFFF) + (sum >> 16);
>>
>>       return ~sum;
>> }
>>
>> static void pkt_burst_flow_gen(void)
>> {
>>       struct rte_ipv4_hdr *ip_hdr = (struct rte_ipv4_hdr *) malloc(4096);
>>       memset(ip_hdr, 0, sizeof(*ip_hdr));
>>       ip_hdr->version_ihl     = 1;
>>       ip_hdr->type_of_service = 2;
>>       ip_hdr->fragment_offset = 3;
>>       ip_hdr->time_to_live    = 4;
>>       ip_hdr->next_proto_id   = 5;
>>       ip_hdr->packet_id       = 6;
>>       ip_hdr->src_addr        = 7;
>>       ip_hdr->dst_addr        = 8;
>>       ip_hdr->total_length    = 9;
>>       ip_hdr->hdr_checksum    = ip_sum((uint16_t *)ip_hdr, sizeof(*ip_hdr));
>>       printf("%x\n", ip_hdr->hdr_checksum);
>> }
>>
>> int main(void)
>> {
>>       pkt_burst_flow_gen();
>>       return 0;
>> }
>>
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-01-07 14:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-03 13:59 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] app/testpmd: fix IP checksum calculation George Prekas
2020-12-03 16:08 ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-12-03 16:35   ` George Prekas
2020-12-03 18:33     ` Stephen Hemminger
2020-12-04  8:59 ` Ferruh Yigit
2020-12-05  5:47   ` George Prekas
2020-12-05  5:42 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] " George Prekas
2021-01-05 16:26   ` George Prekas
2021-01-06 18:02   ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-07  5:25     ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-01-07  5:39     ` George Prekas
2021-01-07 11:32       ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-07 13:06         ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-07 14:20         ` George Prekas [this message]
2021-01-07 15:22           ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-07 20:45             ` George Prekas
2021-01-07 15:50       ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-01-07 15:59         ` Ferruh Yigit
2021-01-07 16:29           ` Stephen Hemminger
2021-01-07 20:42   ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " George Prekas
2021-01-18 15:20     ` Ferruh Yigit

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=f2062f71-0625-ebe7-4469-0a5513368153@amazon.com \
    --to=prekageo@amazon.com \
    --cc=beilei.xing@intel.com \
    --cc=bernard.iremonger@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
    --cc=stephen@networkplumber.org \
    --cc=wenzhuo.lu@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.