netdev - Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] ipv6: Honor route mtu if it is within limit of dev mtu

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:   Thu, 16 Jun 2022 09:42:16 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>
Cc:     "Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan (KS)" <quic_subashab@...cinc.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Linux NetDev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>,
        Kaustubh Pandey <quic_kapandey@...cinc.com>,
        Sean Tranchetti <quic_stranche@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2 1/2] ipv6: Honor route mtu if it is within limit
 of dev mtu

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:33:02 -0700 Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 10:36 PM Subash Abhinov Kasiviswanathan (KS) <quic_subashab@...cinc.com> wrote:
> > >> CC maze, please add him if there is v3
> > >>
> > >> I feel like the problem is with the fact that link mtu resets protocol
> > >> MTUs. Nothing we can do about that, so why not set link MTU to 9k (or
> > >> whatever other quantification of infinity there is) so you don't have
> > >> to touch it as you discover the MTU for v4 and v6?  
> >
> > That's a good point.  
> 
> Because link mtu affects rx mtu which affects nic buffer allocations.
> Somewhere in the vicinity of mtu 1500..2048 your packets stop fitting
> in 2kB of memory and need 4kB (or more)

I was afraid someone would point that out :) Luckily the values Subash
mentioned were both under 2k, and hope fully the device can do scatter? 
🤞😟 (Don't modems do LRO or some other form of aggregation usually?)

> > >> My worry is that the tweaking of the route MTU update heuristic will
> > >> have no end.
> > >>
> > >> Stefano, does that makes sense or you think the change is good?  
> >
> > The only concern is that current behavior causes the initial packets
> > after interface MTU increase to get dropped as part of PMTUD if the IPv6
> > PMTU itself didn't increase. I am not sure if that was the intended
> > behavior as part of the original change. Stefano, could you please confirm?
> >  
> > > I vaguely recall that if you don't want device mtu changes to affect
> > > ipv6 route mtu, then you should set 'mtu lock' on the routes.
> > > (this meaning of 'lock' for v6 is different than for ipv4, where
> > > 'lock' means transmit IPv4/TCP with Don't Frag bit unset)  
> >
> > I assume 'mtu lock' here refers to setting the PMTU on the IPv6 routes
> > statically. The issue with that approach is that router advertisements
> > can no longer update PMTU once a static route is configured.  
> 
> yeah.   Hmm should RA generated routes use locked mtu too?
> I think the only reason an RA generated route would have mtu information
> is for it to stick...

If link MTU is lower than RA MTU do we do min() or ignore the RA MTU?