netdev - Re: [PATCH] vxlan: Fix error that was resulting in VXLAN MTU size being 10 bytes too large

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: <20121119080351.477525b3@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net>
Date:	Mon, 19 Nov 2012 08:03:51 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Joseph Glanville <joseph.glanville@...onvm.com.au>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vxlan: Fix error that was resulting in VXLAN MTU size
 being 10 bytes too large

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:33:50 +1100
Joseph Glanville <joseph.glanville@...onvm.com.au> wrote:

> On 14 November 2012 08:33, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 14:37:19 -0500 (EST)
> > David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
> >> Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2012 15:35:24 -0800
> >>
> >> > This change fixes an issue I found where VXLAN frames were fragmented when
> >> > they were up to the VXLAN MTU size.  I root caused the issue to the fact that
> >> > the headroom was 4 + 20 + 8 + 8.  This math doesn't appear to be correct
> >> > because we are not inserting a VLAN header, but instead a 2nd Ethernet header.
> >> > As such the math for the overhead should be 20 + 8 + 8 + 14 to account for the
> >> > extra headers that are inserted for VXLAN.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...el.com>
> >>
> >> Applied, thanks for the detailed commit message.
> >
> > Probably need smarter code there to look at header length requirement
> > of underlying device as well, maybe someone will be perverse and runn
> > vxlan over a tunnel or IPoIB.
> 
> Forgive my ignorance but why would running VXLAN on IPoIB require
> special header handling? (and would it work or behave strangely?)
> 
> I was planning on giving this a go when 3.7 is released but I might do
> that sooner if problems are anticipated.
> 
> > --
> > 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
> 
> Joseph.
> 

Some lower layers require bigger (or smaller headers). As it was, vxlan
was only allocating skb with a fixed amount of headroom. This would lead to
lower layers having to copy the skb.

My suggestion has already been addressed by a later patch.
--
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