On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 11:02 AM Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 25-Oct-23 12:30 AM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Nicolau, Radu <radu.nico...@intel.com>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 10:49 PM
> >> To: Zhang, Qi Z <qi.z.zh...@intel.com>; Marchand, David
> >> <david.march...@redhat.com>
> >> Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei
> >> <beilei.x...@intel.com>;
> >> dev@dpdk.org; sta...@dpdk.org
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix IAVF_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK definition
> >>
> >>
> >> On 24-Oct-23 12:24 PM, Zhang, Qi Z wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2023 6:23 PM
> >>>> To: Marchand, David <david.march...@redhat.com>
> >>>> Cc: Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; Xing, Beilei
> >>>> <beilei.x...@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; sta...@dpdk.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/iavf: fix IAVF_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK definition
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 24-Oct-23 10:49 AM, David Marchand wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:13 AM Radu Nicolau
> >>>>> <radu.nico...@intel.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> IAVF_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK definition contained
> >>>> RTE_ETH_TX_OFFLOAD_SECURITY
> >>>>>> instead of RTE_MBUF_F_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Fixes: 6bc987ecb860 ("net/iavf: support IPsec inline crypto")
> >>>>>> Cc: sta...@dpdk.org
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Radu Nicolau <radu.nico...@intel.com>
> >>>>> Something is not clear to me.
> >>>>> How was the IPsec inline crypto feature supposed to work with this
> >>>>> driver so far?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any packet with the RTE_MBUF_F_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD flag should have
> >> been
> >>>>> refused in iavf_prep_pkts.
> >>>>>
> >>>> It worked because the IPsec sample app doesn't call
> >>>> rte_eth_tx_prepare, and from what I can see no other sample app does.
> >>> To keep consistent, its better to refine the
> >> IAVF_TX_OFFLOAD_NOTSUP_MASK definition.
> >>
> >> You mean like this?
> >>
> >>
> >> #define IAVF_TX_OFFLOAD_NOTSUP_MASK ( \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_OFFLOAD_MASK ^ ( \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_OUTER_IPV6 | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_OUTER_IPV4 | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IPV6 | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IPV4 | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_VLAN | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_IP_CKSUM | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_L4_MASK | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_TCP_SEG | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_UDP_SEG | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_TUNNEL_MASK | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_OUTER_IP_CKSUM | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_OUTER_UDP_CKSUM | \
> >> RTE_MBUF_F_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD))
> > Sorry, I miss understanding this code change, actually you didn't remove a
> > flag, but just replace it, NOTSUP_MASK no need to be changed
> >
> > Then I don't understand why "Any packet with the RTE_MBUF_F_TX_SEC_OFFLOAD
> > flag should have refused in iavf_prep_pkts"
> > But I assume tx_pkt_prepare should reject only invalid packets while still
> > functioning correctly with inline IPsec.
>
> rte_eth_tx_prepare would have rejected the packets before this fix, but
> no app calls rte_eth_tx_prepare. The only app that calls it is testpmd.
>From my understanding, applications that want checksum offload are
required to call rte_eth_tx_prepare.
--
David Marchand
