netdev - Re: [PATCH] net-gre-gro: Fix a bug that breaks the forwarding path

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:01:06 -0800 (PST)
From:	Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@...el.com>
To:	Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>
cc:	Joseph Gasparakis <joseph.gasparakis@...el.com>,
	Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-gre-gro: Fix a bug that breaks the forwarding path



On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Jerry Chu wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Joseph Gasparakis
> <joseph.gasparakis@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Jerry Chu wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Or,
> >>
> >> Thanks for writing this up.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com> wrote:
> >> > On 28/02/2014 23:56, David Miller wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> The topic of the skb->encapsulation semantics has come up several times in
> >> >> the past few weeks. We cannot move forward on any changes in this area until
> >> >> the semantics are well defined, and documented. Can someone work on a patch
> >> >> which documents skb->encapsulation properly, and then we can come back to
> >> >> fixing this bug? Thanks.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Lets try... the skb->encapsulation flag was introduced and used in 3.8 by
> >> > the
> >> > sequence of these three commits
> >> >
> >> > 0afb166 vxlan: Add capability of Rx checksum offload for inner packet
> >> > d6727fe vxlan: capture inner headers during encapsulation
> >> > 6a674e9 net: Add support for hardware-offloaded encapsulation
> >> >
> >> > When discussed earlier on the list in the context of the skb->ip_summed
> >> > field,
> >> > Tom Herbert came with the following interpretation for the semantics which
> >> > Joseph confirmed
> >> >
> >> > "when skb->encapsulation is set the ip_summed is valid for both the inner
> >> > and outer header
> >> > (e.g. CHECKSUM_COMPLETE is always assumed okay for both layers). If
> >> > skb->encapsulation is not set then ip_summed is only valid for outer header"
> >>
> >> For GRE encapped pkts is the following interpretation correct?
> >>
> >> 1) ip_summed == CHECKSUM_COMPLETE
> >>     => csum covers IP payload csum of the outer IP datagram
> >>
> >> 2) ip_summed == CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY
> >> 2.1. skb->encapsulation is on => both GRE csum (if one is present) and TCP/UDP
> >> csum have been validated (assuming inner is a TCP or UDP pkt)
> >
> > i40e also supports SCTP csumming for the inner packet, too.
> >
> >>
> >> 2.2. skb->encapsulation is off => only GRE csum (if one is present) is
> >> validated.
> >>
> >
> > Apart for the SCTP request for inclusion, it looks reasonable to me.
> >
> >> >
> >> > As for the TX side of things, the change-log of commit 6a674e9 states
> >> >
> >> > "For Tx encapsulation offload, the driver will need to set the right bits in
> >> > netdev->hw_enc_features. The protocol driver will have to set the
> >> > skb->encapsulation bit and populate the inner headers, so the NIC driver
> >> > will use those inner headers to calculate the csum in hardware."
> >>
> >> So we only support/care about csum offload for the inner pkts, which
> >> makes sense.
> >
> > Well, we care about outer too. It is just that the inner headers are for
> > the inner csum, the outer headers are for the outer csum. The outer
> > headers will be always there anyway, so the patch introduced the inner
> > ones. But I guess this is what you meant, right?
> 
> Actually i was wondering that since there is only one set csum_start/csum_offset
> fields per skb, which would you support CHECKSUM_PARTIAL for both inner
> and outer? You can only support one, right? (I haven't checked the UDP encap
> code to see how this works though.)
> 
> Jerry

I am not sure I understand the question, Jerry... Are you asking in Tx 
path if the ip_summed==CHECKSUM_PARTIAL, which headers will the 
csum_start/csum_offset refer to?

> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > So in higher level, it seems that the role of the skb->encapsulation field
> >> > is to mark the skb to carry encapsulated packet for the code path between
> >> > the time the packet is encapsulated by the protocol driver (e.g vxlan/ipip)
> >> > to the time driver xmit is called. Or from the time driver rx code runs till
> >> > the the time the packet is decapsulated.
> >> >
> >> > Further, my personal interpretation was that on the rx path, skb should
> >> > carry the encapsulation flag **only** if the HW was able to offload the
> >> > inner checksum.
> >>
> >> SGTM.
> >>
> >> Jerry
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Joseph, what's your thinking here?
> >> >
> >> > Or.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> 
--
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