netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2 2/3] geneve: Relax MTU constraints

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, 16 Feb 2016 08:44:02 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
To:	David Wragg <david@...ve.works>
Cc:	Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	ovs dev <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	Roopa Prabhu <roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 2/3] geneve: Relax MTU constraints

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 4:33 AM, David Wragg <david@...ve.works> wrote:
> Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org> writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Jesse Gross <jesse@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:41 PM, David Wragg <david@...ve.works> wrote:
>>>>> Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com> writes:
>>>>>> The correct thing to do is determine the maximum amount of
>>>>>> encapsulation overhead that can ever be set in a packet and use for
>>>>>> setting the MTU. For instance, when RCO is enable in GUE, the size of
>>>>>> the option is included in tunnel->encap_hlen even though it will not
>>>>>> be used in all packets (via ip_tunnel_change_mtu). If there is no way
>>>>>> to determine a maximum overhead a priori from configuration, then
>>>>>> maximum overhead could be assumed to be maximum possible encapsulation
>>>>>> header size which for Geneve is 132 bytes IIRC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I'll come up with a patch to address this.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that this really applies in this situation. The concerns
>>>> here relate to what the MTU is actually set to but this patch affects
>>>> the range of MTUs allowed to be set by the user. I don't see a reason
>>>> to disallow the user from setting a precise value if they know what it
>>>> should be.
>>>>
>>> Right, but if the user sets a bad value and packets are silently
>>> dropped on the floor then that seems like a bad result that could have
>>> easily been prevented.
>>
>> Sure, we might as well prevent the extreme edge cases that can never
>> be valid. In the case of Geneve though, this would be the minimum
>> header size, not the maximum, since it's possible that the user
>> actually knows how big the options are that they want to use.
>>
>> But as I said, the practical impact is low because IP_MAX_MTU is so
>> much larger than the MTU of real devices. There will always be many
>> values that the MTU can be set to that result in dropped packets. This
>> is true of all tunnel types.
>
> I agree with Jesse, and if there was a debate about lifting the MTU
> limit on all tunnel types to IP_MAX_MTU, I'd be for that.
>
> But for the other tunnel types, I followed the precedent of the code
> that was already there, and geneve might as well be consistent.
>
Please implement like in ip_tunnel_change_mtu (or better yet call it),
that is the precedent for tunnels.

Tom


> Patch sent to the lists.
>
> David