Date:	Tue, 07 Jan 2014 14:47:45 +0100
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	Norbert van Bolhuis <nvbolhuis@...valley.nl>
CC:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, uaca@...mni.uv.es
Subject: Re: single process receives own frames due to PACKET_MMAP

On 01/07/2014 02:16 PM, Norbert van Bolhuis wrote:
> On 01/07/14 11:06, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Jan 2014 10:32:01 +0100
>> Daniel Borkmann<dborkman@...hat.com>  wrote:
>>> On 01/06/2014 11:58 PM, Norbert van Bolhuis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Our application uses raw AF_PACKET socket to send and receive
>>>> on one particular ethernet interface.
>>>>
>>>> Recently we started using PACKET_MMAP (TPACKET_V2). This makes
>>>> the Appl use a TX socket and a RX socket.
>>>> Both sockets are bound to the same (eth) interface. I noticed
>>>> the RX socket receives all frames that are sent via the
>>>> TX socket (same process, different thread). This I do not want.
>>>>
>>>> I know it is supposed to happen for different processes
>>>> (otherwise wireshark won't work), but I did not expect it to
>>>> happen for one single process (with different threads).
>>>>
>>>> I can filter them out in user-space (PACKET_OUTGOING)
>>>> or via kernel packet filter (SO_ATTACH_FILTER), but performance is
>>>> critical.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder whether this (PACKET_MMAP) behaviour is OK.
>>>
>>> For your use-case, we recently introduced in d346a3fae3ff1
>>> ("packet: introduce PACKET_QDISC_BYPASS socket option") a
>>> bypass of dev_queue_xmit() (that internally invokes
>>> dev_queue_xmit_nit()).
>>>
>>>> It did not happen before (with a non-PACKET_MMAP AF_PACKET socket
>>>> which was used by both threads of the same Appl process). So
>>>> why is it happening now ?
>>>
>>> Can you elaborate a bit on which kernel versions that behaviour
>>> changed?
>
>
> Sorry, I wasn't very clear. This does not regard kernel (versions).
> With "before" I mean our previous version of our application which
> used an AF_PACKET socket, but not the PACKET_MMAP option.

Hmm, taking a look into 2.6.35.14, it doesn't seem to be so much of
a difference.

W/o seeing how you've invoked mmap vs non-mmap API, it's hard to say.
Could you try with latest upstream resp. net-next kernel?

>>>> I'd say it makes no sense to make the same process receive its
>>>> own transmitted frames on that same interface (unless its lo).
>>
>> Have you setup:
>>   ring->s_ll.sll_protocol = 0
>>
>> This is what I did in trafgen to avoid this problem.
>>
>> See line 55 in netsniff-ng/ring.c:
>>   https://github.com/borkmann/netsniff-ng/blob/c3602a995b21e8133c7f4fd1fb1e7e21b6a844f1/ring.c#L55
>>
>> Commit:
>>   https://github.com/borkmann/netsniff-ng/commit/c3602a995b21e8133c7f4fd1fb1e7e21b6a844f1
>>
>
>
> No I did not do that, I was checking my code against netsniff-ng-0.5.8-rc4.
>
> But I just tried it, I believe I do the same as netsniff-ng-0.5.8-rc5, but it doesn't
> work for me. Maybe because I have an old FC14 system (kernel 2.6.35.14-106.fc14.x86_64).
>
> So I tried to see whether netsniff-ng-0.5.8-rc5/trafgen still makes the
> kernel call packet_rcv() on my FC14 system. So I build and run it, but I'm not sure
> how to (easily) check that. In anyway, Wireshark does capture the trafgen generated
> frames, does that say anything ?

Yep, kernel is definitely too old for that.

> In the future, I can at least use PACKET_QDISC_BYPASS as a "workaround".
>
> Thanks a lot for your answers.
>
> ---
> Norbert
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists