| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAN17JHVsgRqkOgeJ0+vvQe3kN1W0ue0vKHa3uebFHa9oH2ngXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:39:00 -0700
From: Yinglin Sun <yinglin.s@...il.com>
To: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
John Eaglesham <johneagl@...oo-inc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: L2L3 xmit doesn't support IPv6
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 08:58:59AM -0700, Jay Vosburgh wrote:
>> Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net> wrote:
> [...]
>> >
>> >There have been some attempts to add support for ipv6 hashing this in
>> >the past, but none have been committed. The best one I had seen was one
>> >that did some extensive testing one a wide variety of ipv6 traffic and
>> >it showed nice traffic distribution. I'm not sure if it was ever posted
>> >upstream, so I will see if I can dig it up.
>> >
>> >Can you quantify how traffic was distributed with this algorithm?
>>
>> As I recall, the IPv6 issues had to do with the "layer3+4" hash,
>> because the IPv6 TCP or UDP port numbers can be harder to get at than in
>> IPv4 (which typically has a fixed size header). The above is just for
>> layer 2, so it only hits the IPv6 addresses, which don't move around.
>>
>> That said, I believe that many IPv6 addresses are derived from
>> the MAC address, the autoconf addresses in particular, so s6_addr32[3]
>> may not show a lot more variation than just the MAC address. I don't
>> know for sure though, since I haven't tested it.
>>
>> I don't recall seeing the patch you mention, Andy, that checks
>> ipv6 traffic; can you post it?
>>
>
> I found the patch, cleaned it up, and compile tested it against
> net-next. I traded some emails with John Eaglesham (cc'd) earlier this
> year and though he planned to post it, I never followed up.
>
> His comments about this patch were as follows:
>
> "I've attached my patch for IPv6 transmit hashing for the nic bonding
> driver.
>
> "The algorithm I chose is based on 273,913 IPv6 client addresses I
> gathered from webservers and ran through a test program that implemented
> several algorithms. This algorithm provided the most even distribution
> while using the fewest instructions.
>
> "I've tested this on 2.6.39-rc4 and a similar patch to 2.6.18 (from
> RHEL5 5.4.3) and it has performed as expected in both cases.
>
> "Please let me know if you have any comments, otherwise I suppose the
> next step is to propose the patch to LKML."
>
> I would suggest we use this. John or I could write an official
> changelog and post this in it's own thread if it looks good to others.
>
> ---
> drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> index 6191e63..335cb67 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_main.c
> @@ -3368,11 +3368,20 @@ static struct notifier_block bond_inetaddr_notifier = {
> static int bond_xmit_hash_policy_l23(struct sk_buff *skb, int count)
> {
> struct ethhdr *data = (struct ethhdr *)skb->data;
> - struct iphdr *iph = ip_hdr(skb);
>
> if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IP)) {
> + struct iphdr *iph = ip_hdr(skb);
> return ((ntohl(iph->saddr ^ iph->daddr) & 0xffff) ^
> (data->h_dest[5] ^ data->h_source[5])) % count;
> + } else if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IPV6)) {
> + struct ipv6hdr *ipv6h = ipv6_hdr(skb);
> + u32 v6hash = (
> + (ipv6h->saddr.s6_addr32[1] ^ ipv6h->daddr.s6_addr32[1]) ^
> + (ipv6h->saddr.s6_addr32[2] ^ ipv6h->daddr.s6_addr32[2]) ^
> + (ipv6h->saddr.s6_addr32[3] ^ ipv6h->daddr.s6_addr32[3])
> + );
> + v6hash = (v6hash >> 16) ^ (v6hash >> 8) ^ v6hash;
> + return (v6hash ^ data->h_dest[5] ^ data->h_source[5]) % count;
> }
>
> return (data->h_dest[5] ^ data->h_source[5]) % count;
> @@ -3386,11 +3395,11 @@ static int bond_xmit_hash_policy_l23(struct sk_buff *skb, int count)
> static int bond_xmit_hash_policy_l34(struct sk_buff *skb, int count)
> {
> struct ethhdr *data = (struct ethhdr *)skb->data;
> - struct iphdr *iph = ip_hdr(skb);
> - __be16 *layer4hdr = (__be16 *)((u32 *)iph + iph->ihl);
> - int layer4_xor = 0;
> + u32 layer4_xor = 0;
>
> if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IP)) {
> + struct iphdr *iph = ip_hdr(skb);
> + __be16 *layer4hdr = (__be16 *)((u32 *)iph + iph->ihl);
> if (!ip_is_fragment(iph) &&
> (iph->protocol == IPPROTO_TCP ||
> iph->protocol == IPPROTO_UDP)) {
> @@ -3398,7 +3407,18 @@ static int bond_xmit_hash_policy_l34(struct sk_buff *skb, int count)
> }
> return (layer4_xor ^
> ((ntohl(iph->saddr ^ iph->daddr)) & 0xffff)) % count;
> -
> + } else if (skb->protocol == htons(ETH_P_IPV6)) {
> + struct ipv6hdr *ipv6h = ipv6_hdr(skb);
> + __be16 *layer4hdrv6 = (__be16 *)((u8 *)ipv6h + sizeof(*ipv6h));
> + if (ipv6h->nexthdr == IPPROTO_TCP || ipv6h->nexthdr == IPPROTO_UDP) {
Does this work if this is a fragmentation packet? and if
ipv6h->nexthdr is not IPPROTO_TCP/IPPROTO_UDP, it doesn't mean this is
not TCP/UDP packet. We need to go through the extension header chain
and look at the last one. It's likely there are some other extension
headers before L4 header.
Yinglin
> + layer4_xor = (*layer4hdrv6 ^ *(layer4hdrv6 + 1));
> + }
> + layer4_xor ^= (
> + (ipv6h->saddr.s6_addr32[1] ^ ipv6h->daddr.s6_addr32[1]) ^
> + (ipv6h->saddr.s6_addr32[2] ^ ipv6h->daddr.s6_addr32[2]) ^
> + (ipv6h->saddr.s6_addr32[3] ^ ipv6h->daddr.s6_addr32[3])
> + );
> + return ((layer4_xor >> 16) ^ (layer4_xor >> 8) ^ layer4_xor) % count;
> }
>
> return (data->h_dest[5] ^ data->h_source[5]) % count;
> --
> 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
>
--
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