linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix kernel crash with macvtap on top of LRO

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]

Message-ID: <87wqptplhw.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Date:	Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:05:39 +0930
From:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix kernel crash with macvtap on top of LRO

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 03:56:36PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-06-10 at 10:07 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 01:14:20PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> > > From: Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
>> > > Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 16:20:46 +0000
>> > > 
>> > > > If the consensus is still that we must preserve packets exactly (aside
>> > > > from the usual modifications by IP routers) then LRO should be disabled
>> > > > on all devices for which forwarding is enabled.
>> > > 
>> > > I believe this is still undoubtedly the consensus.
>> > 
>> > With virtio we are getting packets from a linux host,
>> > so we could thinkably preserve packets exactly
>> > even with LRO. I am guessing other hardware could be
>> > doing this as well.
>> > 
>> > I am not sure what information would need to be preserved -
>> > could someone help clarify please?
>> 
>> Some LRO implementations may not preserve:
>> 
>> - Packet boundaries
>>   - TSO/GSO produces packets all the same size, except possibly for the
>>     last one.  GRO therefore flushes a flow after merging a packet with
>>     a different segment size.
>> - IPv4 TTL, IPv6 hop-limit, TCP timestamp
>>   - TSO/GSO will put the same values in all packets.  GRO flushes a flow
>>     if they change.
>> - IPv4 fragment ID
>>   - TSO/GSO produces consecutive fragment IDs.  GRO flushes a flow
>>     if it sees a non-consecutive fragment ID.
>> - MAC header, IPv4 TOS, IPv6 traffic class
>>   - Should be the same for all packets in a flow.  GRO actually checks
>>     and flushes a flow if they change.
>> 
>> Ben.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Okay so since LRO in virtio is actually running on top
> of GRO/TSO in linux, looks like the only things worth preserving
> that we don't preserve at the moment are the packet
> boundaries, for which it's enough to report
> the first segment size to guest - we have the total length,
> from that we can calculate the last segment size.

Isn't this reflected in virtio_net_hdr->gso_size?

But the bigger point here is that we shouldn't be feeding guests LRO
packets which don't meet the stricter GRO requirements, as we don't know
what the guest is doing with them.  It might be forwarding them itself.

I thought LRO was deprecated and GRO was the new hotness, but I haven't
been following.  Do we still care about LRO?

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/