[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1256736757.3153.412.camel@linux-1lbu>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:32:37 -0500
From: Steve Chen <schen@...sta.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Multicast packet reassembly can fail
On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 11:18 +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Steve Chen a écrit :
> > Multicast packet reassembly can fail
> >
> > When multicast connections with multiple fragments are received by the same
> > node from more than one Ethernet ports, race condition between fragments
> > from each Ethernet port can cause fragment reassembly to fail leading to
> > packet drop. This is because packets from each Ethernet port appears identical
> > to the the code that reassembles the Ethernet packet.
> >
> > The solution is evaluate the Ethernet interface number in addition to all other
> > parameters so that every packet can be uniquely identified. The existing
> > iif field in struct ipq is now used to generate the hash key, and iif is also
> > used for comparison in case of hash collision.
> >
> > Please note that q->saddr ^ (q->iif << 5) is now being passed into
> > ipqhashfn to generate the hash key. This is borrowed from the routing
> > code.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Steve Chen <schen@...sta.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Huth <mhuth@...sta.com>
> >
>
> This makes no sense to me, but I need to check the code.
>
> How interface could matter in IP defragmentation ?
> And why multicast is part of the equation ?
>
> If defrag fails, this must be for other reason,
> and probably needs another fix.
>
> Check line 219 of net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> /* With SMP race we have to recheck hash table, because
> * such entry could be created on other cpu, while we
> * promoted read lock to write lock.
> */
> hlist_for_each_entry(qp, n, &f->hash[hash], list) {
> if (qp->net == nf && f->match(qp, arg)) {
> atomic_inc(&qp->refcnt);
> write_unlock(&f->lock);
> qp_in->last_in |= INET_FRAG_COMPLETE; <<< HERE >>>
> inet_frag_put(qp_in, f);
> return qp;
> }
> }
> #endif
>
> I really wonder why we set INET_FRAG_COMPLETE here
I sent the specific scenario the patch tries to address to the list in
an earlier e-mail. Would it be beneficial if I post the test code
somewhere so everyone can have access?
Regards,
Steve
--
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