netdev - Re: regression caused by 1d2024f61ec14bdb0c57a97a3fe73685abc2d198?

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: <20130206222654.GA6195@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Feb 2013 00:26:54 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, alexander.h.duyck@...el.com,
	stephen.s.ko@...el.com, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	sony.chacko@...gic.com, mchan@...adcom.com,
	jitendra.kalsaria@...gic.com, eilong@...adcom.com
Subject: Re: regression caused by 1d2024f61ec14bdb0c57a97a3fe73685abc2d198?

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:55:47PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 23:45 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:58:21PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 17:50 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 05:07:39AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2013-02-06 at 13:43 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > It seems that starting with kernel 3.3 ixgbe sets gso_size for
> > > > > > incoming frames. It seems that this might result in gso_size
> > > > > > being set even when gso_type is 0.
> > > > > > This in turn leads to a crash at macvtap_skb_to_vnet_hdr
> > > > > > drivers/net/macvtap.c:628
> > > > > > which has this code:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >        if (skb_is_gso(skb)) {
> > > > > >                 struct skb_shared_info *sinfo = skb_shinfo(skb);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >                 /* This is a hint as to how much should be linear. */
> > > > > >                 vnet_hdr->hdr_len = skb_headlen(skb);
> > > > > >                 vnet_hdr->gso_size = sinfo->gso_size;
> > > > > >                 if (sinfo->gso_type & SKB_GSO_TCPV4)
> > > > > >                         vnet_hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV4;
> > > > > >                 else if (sinfo->gso_type & SKB_GSO_TCPV6)
> > > > > >                         vnet_hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_TCPV6;
> > > > > >                 else if (sinfo->gso_type & SKB_GSO_UDP)
> > > > > >                         vnet_hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_UDP;
> > > > > >                 else
> > > > > >                         BUG();
> > > > > >                 if (sinfo->gso_type & SKB_GSO_TCP_ECN)
> > > > > >                         vnet_hdr->gso_type |= VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_ECN;
> > > > > >         } else
> > > > > >                 vnet_hdr->gso_type = VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_NONE;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Since skb_is_gso tests gso_size.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What's the right way to handle this? Should skb_is_gso be
> > > > > > changed to test gso_type != 0?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or fix ixgbe to set gso_type in ixgbe_get_headlen(), as it does all the
> > > > > dissection.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm, ixgbe_get_headlen isn't run on linear skbs though.
> > > > 
> > > > Also, I'm not sure I understand when should drivers set gso size
> > > > for incoming messages and what is a reasonable value.
> > > > Commit log talks about improved performance for lossy connections,
> > > > in this case, isn't this something net core should set?
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > It should be set to the segment size on the wire, so TCP gets a correct
> > > picture of packet loss.  The networking core has no idea what hardware/
> > > firmware LRO did.
> > > 
> > > I've previously raised this issue of macvlan vs LRO (which is the same
> > > issue we previously had with IP forwarding and with bridging):
> > >      http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/221695
> > > 
> > > Ben.
> > 
> > I see, you proposed disabling LRO the moment a macvlan is attached.
> > If I understand correctly, the difference as compared to bridge is that
> > bridge normally consumes all incoming packets, macvlan is often used in
> > parallel with the underlying interface.
> 
> Not so different from IP forwarding, though, in that a single interface
> can both forward packets and deliver them locally.

Hmm, for ip forwarding we don't try do disable LRO on the device, do we?
What's the solution there?

> > BTW are there other issues with forwarding/bridging and LRO? If everyone
> > sets gso_type in packets it seems we can leave LRO set even with
> > bridging?
> 
> Some implementations of LRO violate the end-to-end principle by merging
> segments with varying lengths and TCP timestamps.  GRO is very careful
> to ensure that the original packets can be recovered from the skbs it
> produces.
> 
> Ben.
> 
> -- 
> Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
> Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
> They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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