From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Charlie Jenkins <charlie@rivosinc.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10] lib: checksum: Use aligned accesses for ip_fast_csum and csum_ipv6_magic tests
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 19:06:46 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZdzhRntTHApp0doV@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZdzZ5tk459bgUrgz@ghost>
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:35:18AM -0800, Charlie Jenkins wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 05:50:57PM +0000, Russell King (Oracle) wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 08:44:29AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On 2/26/24 03:34, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le 23/02/2024 à 23:11, Charlie Jenkins a écrit :
> > > > > The test cases for ip_fast_csum and csum_ipv6_magic were not properly
> > > > > aligning the IP header, which were causing failures on architectures
> > > > > that do not support misaligned accesses like some ARM platforms. To
> > > > > solve this, align the data along (14 + NET_IP_ALIGN) bytes which is the
> > > > > standard alignment of an IP header and must be supported by the
> > > > > architecture.
> > > >
> > > > I'm still wondering what we are really trying to fix here.
> > > >
> > > > All other tests are explicitely testing that it works with any alignment.
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't ip_fast_csum() and csum_ipv6_magic() work for any alignment as
> > > > well ? I would expect it, I see no comment in arm code which explicits
> > > > that assumption around those functions.
> > > >
> > > > Isn't the problem only the following line, because csum_offset is
> > > > unaligned ?
> > > >
> > > > csum = *(__wsum *)(random_buf + i + csum_offset);
> > > >
> > > > Otherwise, if there really is an alignment issue for the IPv6 source or
> > > > destination address, isn't it enough to perform a 32 bits alignment ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It isn't just arm.
> > >
> > > Question should be what alignments the functions are supposed to be able
> > > to handle, not what they are optimized for. If byte and/or half word alignments
> > > are expected to be supported, there is still architecture code which would
> > > have to be fixed. Unaligned accesses are known to fail on hppa64/parisc64
> > > and on sh4, for example. If unaligned accesses are expected to be handled,
> > > it would probably make sense to add a separate test case, though, to clarify
> > > that the test fails due to alignment issues, not due to input parameters.
> >
> > It's network driver dependent. Most network drivers receive packets
> > to the offset defined by NET_IP_ALIGN (which is normally 2) which
> > has the effect of "mis-aligning" the ethernet header, but aligning
> > the IP header.
> >
> > Whether drivers do that is up to drivers (and their capabilities).
> > Some network drivers can not do this kind of alignment, so there are
> > cases where the received packets aren't offset by two bytes, leading
> > to the IP header being aligned to an odd 16-bit word rather than an
> > even 16-bit word (and thus 32-bit aligned.)
> >
> > Then you have the possibility of other headers between the ethernet
> > and IP header - not only things like VLANs, but also possibly DSA
> > headers (for switches) and how big those are.
>
> Those additional combinations can be supported by future test cases,
> but the goal of this patch was simply to have basic testing for these
> functions. The NET_IP_ALIGN offset is what the kernel defines to be
> supported, so that is the test case I went for.
I think you misunderstand. "NET_IP_ALIGN offset is what the kernel
defines to be supported" is a gross misinterpretation. It is not
"defined to be supported" at all. It is the _preferred_ alignment
nothing more, nothing less.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-26 19:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-02-23 22:11 [PATCH v10] lib: checksum: Use aligned accesses for ip_fast_csum and csum_ipv6_magic tests Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-25 15:58 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-26 11:34 ` Christophe Leroy
2024-02-26 11:47 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2024-02-26 11:57 ` Christophe Leroy
2024-02-26 12:03 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2024-02-26 16:44 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-26 17:50 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2024-02-26 18:35 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-26 19:06 ` Russell King (Oracle) [this message]
2024-02-26 19:19 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-26 22:33 ` David Laight
2024-02-26 23:17 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-26 23:48 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-27 6:47 ` Christophe Leroy
2024-02-27 10:28 ` Russell King (Oracle)
2024-02-27 11:32 ` Christophe Leroy
2024-02-27 17:54 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-27 18:11 ` Christophe Leroy
2024-02-27 18:21 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-27 18:35 ` Christophe Leroy
2024-02-27 19:04 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-27 19:31 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-27 22:44 ` David Laight
2024-02-28 5:19 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-28 0:24 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-28 0:21 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-28 7:25 ` Christophe Leroy
2024-02-28 7:59 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-28 10:15 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-02-28 15:40 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-29 8:07 ` David Gow
2024-02-29 19:38 ` Charlie Jenkins
2024-02-29 20:22 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-03-01 7:00 ` Christophe Leroy
2024-03-01 6:46 ` Christophe Leroy
2024-03-01 16:24 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-03-01 20:47 ` Guenter Roeck
2024-02-27 11:17 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2024-02-27 17:55 ` Charlie Jenkins
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=ZdzhRntTHApp0doV@shell.armlinux.org.uk \
--to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
--cc=David.Laight@aculab.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=charlie@rivosinc.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=deller@gmx.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=palmer@rivosinc.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).