netdev - Re: [patch net-next 1/2] ip6_output: fragment outgoing reassembled skb properly

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: <20131109110053.GA2447@minipsycho.orion>
Date:	Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:00:53 +0100
From:	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, pablo@...filter.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org,
	kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu, kaber@...sh.net, mleitner@...hat.com,
	kuznet@....inr.ac.ru, jmorris@...ei.org, wensong@...ux-vs.org,
	horms@...ge.net.au, ja@....bg, edumazet@...gle.com,
	pshelar@...ira.com, jasowang@...hat.com,
	alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, fw@...len.de
Subject: Re: [patch net-next 1/2] ip6_output: fragment outgoing reassembled
 skb properly

Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 08:49:15PM CET, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:52:01 +0100
>
>> Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:54:53AM CET, davem@...emloft.net wrote:
>>>From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>>Date: Wed,  6 Nov 2013 17:52:19 +0100
>>>
>>>> If reassembled packet would fit into outdev MTU, it is not fragmented
>>>> according the original frag size and it is send as single big packet.
>>>> 
>>>> The second case is if skb is gso. In that case fragmentation does not happen
>>>> according to the original frag size.
>>>> 
>>>> This patch fixes these.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>  	if ((skb->len > ip6_skb_dst_mtu(skb) && !skb_is_gso(skb)) ||
>>>> -	    dst_allfrag(skb_dst(skb)))
>>>> +	    dst_allfrag(skb_dst(skb)) ||
>>>> +	    (IP6CB(skb)->frag_max_size && skb->len > IP6CB(skb)->frag_max_size))
>>>>  		return ip6_fragment(skb, ip6_finish_output2);
>>>
>>>Jiri are you sure that you don't need to take GSO into account in the
>>>new part you are adding to the test?
>> 
>> 
>> For gso skb, we need co cap outgoing fragments by the original frag size
>> as well. So I believe that this code is correct for that case as well.
>
>I'm still not so sure I agree, even after having taken a second look
>at this.
>
>Look at ipv4's logic for this same facility:
>
>		if (skb->len > ip_skb_dst_mtu(skb) && !skb_is_gso(skb))
>			return ip_fragment(skb, ip_finish_output2);
>
>Strictly, we only call ip_fragment() if skb_is_gso() is false.  And then
>in ip_fragment():
>
>	if (unlikely(((iph->frag_off & htons(IP_DF)) && !skb->local_df) ||
>		     (IPCB(skb)->frag_max_size &&
>		      IPCB(skb)->frag_max_size > dst_mtu(&rt->dst)))) {
>
>And that second branch of this test is what you're trying to duplicate
>into ipv6.

That is a different check and the same one is already in ip6_fragment().

You cannot compare this to ipv4 directly. In ipv4 if frag skbs are
reassembled into one, they can be forwarded out in different frag sizes
(bigger or smaller) or not in frags at all. Therefore you can lay off
the work to offload.

But for ipv6, the same frags need to go out as they came in. Offload would
not do that as it would try to max the flag sizes to the MTU ->
That is exactly why I add the "skb->len > IP6CB(skb)->frag_max_size" check.

Imagine scenario:

hostA-NIC(MTU1400) ------ NIC(MTU1400)-hostB-NIC(MTU1500) ------ NIC(MTU1500)-hostC

And fragmented packets go hostA->hostB->hostC, and we are doing
forwadring on hostB.

I hope I cleared this out. 
--
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