William Tu writes:
> Hi Aaron,
>
> Should we also consider the case where udp checksum is 0x?
> I saw in netdev_tnl_calc_udp_csum, we set to 0x when a packet has
> udp checksum = 0.
I can add it. This was added because a PMD we caught had a broken
firmware that didn't support udp with c
Hi Aaron,
Should we also consider the case where udp checksum is 0x?
I saw in netdev_tnl_calc_udp_csum, we set to 0x when a packet has
udp checksum = 0.
Thanks
William
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:15 PM Flavio Leitner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 02:45:06PM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 02:45:06PM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Flavio Leitner writes:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:49:33AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote:
> >> Recently, during some conntrack testing a bug was uncovered in a DPDK
> >> PMD, which doesn't support an IPv4 packet with a zero checksum
Flavio Leitner writes:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:49:33AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote:
>> Recently, during some conntrack testing a bug was uncovered in a DPDK
>> PMD, which doesn't support an IPv4 packet with a zero checksum value.
>> In order to show that the connection tracking code in userspa
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 11:49:33AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote:
> Recently, during some conntrack testing a bug was uncovered in a DPDK
> PMD, which doesn't support an IPv4 packet with a zero checksum value.
> In order to show that the connection tracking code in userspace
> supports IPv4 UDP with a
Recently, during some conntrack testing a bug was uncovered in a DPDK
PMD, which doesn't support an IPv4 packet with a zero checksum value.
In order to show that the connection tracking code in userspace
supports IPv4 UDP with a zero checksum, add a test case to enforce
this behavior.
Reported-at:
