netdev - Re: [Patch net-next] vxlan: revert "vxlan: Bypass encapsulation if the destination is local"

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: <5166593D.3070003@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:33:33 -0700
From:	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
To:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
CC:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] vxlan: revert "vxlan: Bypass encapsulation if
 the destination is local"

On 4/10/2013 10:55 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> On 4/10/2013 7:10 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>> - when source and destination endpoints belonging to different vni's
>>>>     are on 2 different bridges on the same host. encap bypass is done
>>>>     in this scenario by checking if rt_flags has RTCF_LOCAL set. I think
>>>>     you must be hitting this path and the following patch should fix
>>>>     it by only doing bypass if the source and dest devices belong to
>>>>     the same net. Can you try it and see if it fixes your tests?
>>> I just tested it, unfortunately it doesn't work, the bug still exists.
>>>
>>> If you need any other info, please let me know.
>> So does it mean that you are hitting the if condition that does encap
>> bypass
>> even afterthe net_eq() check? Do the tests pass If you comment out the
>> 'if' block?
> Yes, after adding a printk inside the 'if' block, I got:
>
> [   71.456329] vxlan: dev: vxlan0, dst: 224.8.8.8, dst dev: veth0
> [   71.596551] vxlan: dev: vxlan0, dst: 224.8.8.8, dst dev: veth1
> [   72.028574] vxlan: dev: vxlan0, dst: 224.8.8.8, dst dev: veth0
> [   72.436384] vxlan: dev: vxlan0, dst: 224.8.8.8, dst dev: veth1
> [   73.028576] vxlan: dev: vxlan0, dst: 224.8.8.8, dst dev: veth0
> [   73.185134] vxlan: dev: vxlan0, dst: 224.8.8.8, dst dev: veth0
> [   73.436582] vxlan: dev: vxlan0, dst: 224.8.8.8, dst dev: veth1
> [   74.184251] vxlan: dev: vxlan0, dst: 224.8.8.8, dst dev: veth0
>
> It seems the dst dev is the dev which vxlan0 setup on, so
> there is no way to know if the packet is targeted for a different netns
> on the same host, at least I don't find such RTCF_* flag.
>
> I'd propose to revert that commit partially:
I think we should spend some more time to address this issue correctly.
Bypassing encap makes a significant improvement in performance when the 
dest.
endpoint is on the same host.
So is vxlan_encap_bypass() getting called or are you hitting goto tx_error?

>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/vxlan.c b/drivers/net/vxlan.c
> index 9a64715..0847564 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/vxlan.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/vxlan.c
> @@ -1012,18 +1012,6 @@ static netdev_tx_t vxlan_xmit_one(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
>                  goto tx_error;
>          }
>
> -       /* Bypass encapsulation if the destination is local */
> -       if (rt->rt_flags & RTCF_LOCAL) {
> -               struct vxlan_dev *dst_vxlan;
> -
> -               ip_rt_put(rt);
> -               dst_vxlan = vxlan_find_vni(dev_net(dev), vni);
> -               if (!dst_vxlan)
> -                       goto tx_error;
> -               vxlan_encap_bypass(skb, vxlan, dst_vxlan);
> -               return NETDEV_TX_OK;
> -       }
> -
>          memset(&(IPCB(skb)->opt), 0, sizeof(IPCB(skb)->opt));
>          IPCB(skb)->flags &= ~(IPSKB_XFRM_TUNNEL_SIZE | IPSKB_XFRM_TRANSFORMED |
>                                IPSKB_REROUTED);
>
>
>> Can you share your test config/scripts so that i can try out your setup if
>> it is not toocomplicated?
>>
>
> Sure, here is what I did:
>
> 1) create a veth pair: veth0 and veth1
> 2) create a new netns
> 3) move veth1 to the new netns
> 4) setup vxlan0 on veth0
> 5) setup vxlan0 on veth1 in the new netns
> 6) ping remote, that is the IP of the vxlan0 in new netns
>
I am not all that familiar with creating netns and veth interfaces.
I guess we can do all this via 'ip' command.
Can you give me a script with the exact commands to do this setup?

Thanks
Sridhar

--
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