From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by passt.top (Postfix) with ESMTP id E21E45A0275 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:57:04 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1709197024; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=jmaO3fVo80eX5LKlUvsqkzZtUqUF2lVqeRIUpqU2qa8=; b=Jydrigj8IIBRjCsIA6052jjjOMRNIJzK0gxpVW8tWlV5XTY7r2+JpxKZBDhoAXdLPPlgJk 8A89Pa4uRirCSS7voJ+mFqUmVzt4Sb6/KSp3ZQsDEbRkiy3Rhdb84h23J8GE4bhFbVpe2w /1QL54zBbhSVcbLu99Nks75DspZ/S3w= Received: from mail-ej1-f69.google.com (mail-ej1-f69.google.com [209.85.218.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-100-E-RPXhwbOZG66s2HNSa32g-1; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 03:57:02 -0500 X-MC-Unique: E-RPXhwbOZG66s2HNSa32g-1 Received: by mail-ej1-f69.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a26f2da3c7bso54398466b.0 for ; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:57:02 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709197021; x=1709801821; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:organization:references :in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jmaO3fVo80eX5LKlUvsqkzZtUqUF2lVqeRIUpqU2qa8=; b=WERqZst9ge+9LjraXgO9Q+fyNomHrFja2qyjPBXrKdKJnTDAAY6YiQE6fp08eWHfVU 0rgA4/AF11QUYVB7zTJyFLXEbIm8OpZRpxrqghCfv/JlhcAcFOmGW0a0smb0T583USxM SLBAPbmiPzzj0J1boI/+9/gubpK/eDxvNtlQPCGWdKL7KPE4/5K0KbF0MrHApoDUCMY3 4Co+fSr8JmgmCxnpsCpQ4A74T1U++CK/H0kMYP88GM674coG5NfHXvMiwrAU44qU3Huf hgt05JS0lNqxqf8iGuNppa9FHcSwzWt3NBjZeMapjaU3gzc7c/+m2H2WWZ/Q5jjLshJH /NuQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWE83ZLdr2NCOYIraopRV0BQL9TdLmgQ9td1ADH4aVM8KsLrZFbKGxp/fgcXZxDNjluDg2lmgNSL6HUhjJtDUY24sWp X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyNr9WcExE6SFcCkVgZbfT32Qc2MAExOVI9SYzCSjlgbEt1husH qFYiiiKKt+/p3g3XOF36ezESRbGcdI5YGNOFu2ElLOeUlMYf560L7gRE0TTdECYf+jsnQV6Xdfb 0mbt4yh4I0XbISCao6EpbouLWB7g3p4lAcIWNw1wCL6Mf1/8MeA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6d15:b0:a43:e550:4067 with SMTP id m21-20020a1709066d1500b00a43e5504067mr1130572ejr.12.1709197021141; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:57:01 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEjdVLubzKw9BPfFZEerohFq5rfd0aboqFMu9rhRqP0Dzjy3pvkGE6uYBdH3YYe17ldGNlkkA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:6d15:b0:a43:e550:4067 with SMTP id m21-20020a1709066d1500b00a43e5504067mr1130565ejr.12.1709197020830; Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:57:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from maya.cloud.tilaa.com (maya.cloud.tilaa.com. [164.138.29.33]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id vg9-20020a170907d30900b00a4439b7756bsm461579ejc.6.2024.02.29.00.56.59 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 29 Feb 2024 00:57:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:56:25 +0100 From: Stefano Brivio To: David Gibson Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] checksum: introduce functions to compute the header part checksum for TCP/UDP Message-ID: <20240229095625.557367ab@elisabeth> In-Reply-To: References: <20240217150725.661467-1-lvivier@redhat.com> <20240217150725.661467-8-lvivier@redhat.com> <04c99072-02ea-46a9-aac6-23116cb05fa1@redhat.com> <20240229080509.4f534831@elisabeth> Organization: Red Hat X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.2.0 (GTK 3.24.36; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID-Hash: G6YG7BEWE2EDLPRXQCEJ3PA7QNWENRLM X-Message-ID-Hash: G6YG7BEWE2EDLPRXQCEJ3PA7QNWENRLM X-MailFrom: sbrivio@redhat.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Laurent Vivier , passt-dev@passt.top X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.8 Precedence: list List-Id: Development discussion and patches for passt Archived-At: Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:49:09 +1100 David Gibson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:05:09AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote: > > On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 11:38:53 +1100 > > David Gibson wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:26:18PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > > > On 2/19/24 04:08, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 04:07:23PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > +/** > > > > > > + * proto_ipv6_header_psum() - Calculates the partial checksum of an > > > > > > + * IPv6 header for UDP or TCP > > > > > > + * @payload_len: Payload length > > > > > > + * @proto: Protocol number > > > > > > + * @saddr: Source address > > > > > > + * @daddr: Destination address > > > > > > + * Returns: Partial checksum of the IPv6 header > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +uint32_t proto_ipv6_header_psum(uint16_t payload_len, uint8_t protocol, > > > > > > + struct in6_addr saddr, struct in6_addr daddr) > > > > > > > > > > Hrm, this is passing 2 16-byte IPv6 addresses by value, which might > > > > > not be what we want. > > > > > > > > The idea here is to avoid the pointer alignment problem (&ip6h->saddr and > > > > &ip6h->daddr can be misaligned). > > > > > > Ah, right. That's a neat idea, but I'm not sure it really helps: I > > > think it will just move the misaligned access from inside the function > > > to the call site, where we try to marshal the parameter from something > > > unaligned. > > > > I haven't tested this yet, but note that this is generally okay: the > > problem is *dereferencing* an unaligned pointer. But if you load memory > > from an aligned pointer, and extract a value from this memory, it's all > > fine. > > Right, that's kind of what I'm getting at. Assuming this value starts > in an unaligned buffer, then in order to pass this by value the caller > will need to load from that unaligned pointer. AFAIK, the compiler > will base the type of loads only on the pointed to type, which isn't > changed whether we dereference in the caller or the callee. > > > > > Speaking MIPS, this is not safe on all CPU models: > > > > la $1, 1002 # s1 now contains the value 1002 > > lw $2, 0($1) # load word from memory at 1002 + 0 into s2 > > > > but this is: > > > > la $1, 1000 # s1 now contains the value 1000 > > la $2, 1004 # s3 now contains the value 1004 > > lw $3, 0($1) # load word from memory at 1000 + 0 into s3 > > lw $4, 0($3) # load word from memory at 1004 + 0 into s4 > > sll $5, $3, 16 # 16-bit shift left s3 into s5 > > srl $6, $4, 16 # 16-bit shift right s4 into s6 > > or $2, $5, $6 # OR s5 and s6 into s2 > > Right, but I don't think merely moving the dereference to the caller > will necessarily induce the compiler to generate this rather than the > former. Oh, oops, I didn't realise this was the case (I haven't reviewed the patch yet). -- Stefano