On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 05:49:15PM +0100, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> On 3/8/24 13:42, David Gibson wrote:
> ...
> > > 
> > > The payload can be TCP + data or TCP + flags:
> > > 
> > > struct tcp_l2_flags_t {
> > >          struct tcphdr th;
> > >          char opts[OPT_MSS_LEN + OPT_WS_LEN + 1];
> > > };
> > > 
> > > struct tcp_l2_payload_t {
> > >          struct tcphdr th;       /*    20 bytes */
> > >          uint8_t data[MSS];      /* 65516 bytes */
> > > #ifdef __AVX2__
> > > } __attribute__ ((packed, aligned(32)));
> > > #else
> > > } __attribute__ ((packed, aligned(__alignof__(unsigned int))));
> > > #endif
> > 
> > Not sure if we'd be better off with this approach, or having both IP
> > and L4 headers together, and the L4 payload in another.  The latter
> > would mean duplicating the TCP or UDP headers between the IPv4 and
> > IPv6 cases, but it allows the data buffers - which will be used
> > directly on the socket side.
> > 
> 
> The main idea behind using iovec is to separate tcphdr and iphdr structures,
> allowing for direct access to the pointers of tcphdr and iphdr without
> concerns about pointer alignment. Moreover, having tcphdr and TCP payload in
> the same vector can make sense when computing the TCP checksum, as the
> checksum includes tcphdr and the payload.

Ah, yes.  That makes sense.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson