netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] veth: extend features to support tunneling

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: <1384646957.8604.25.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:09:17 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
Cc:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] veth: extend features to support tunneling

On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 13:40 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 23:11 +0200, Or Gerlitz wrote:
> 
> > Guys (thanks Eric for the clarification over the other vxlan thread),
> > with the latest networking code (e.g 3.12 or net-next)  do you expect
> > notable performance (throughput) difference between these two configs?
> > 
> > 1. bridge --> vxlan --> NIC
> > 2. veth --> bridge --> vxlan --> NIC
> > 
> > BTW #2 doesn't work when packets start to be large unless I manually
> > decrease the veth device pair MTU. E.g if the NIC MTU is 1500, vxlan
> > advertizes an MTU of 1450 (= 1500 - (14 + 20 + 8 + 8)) and the bridge
> > inherits that, but not the veth device. Should someone/somewhere here
> > generate an ICMP packet which will cause the stack to decreate the
> > path mtu for the neighbour created on the veth device? what about
> > para-virtualized guests which are plugged into this (or any host based
> > tunneling) scheme, e.g in this scheme
> > 
> > 3. guest virtio NIC --> vhost  --> tap/macvtap --> bridge --> vxlan --> NIC
> > 
> > Who/how do we want the guest NIC mtu/path mtu to take into account the
> > tunneling over-head?
> 
> I mentioned this problem on another thread : gso packets escape the
> normal mtu checks in ip forwarding.
> 
> vi +91 net/ipv4/ip_forward.c
> 
> gso_size contains the size of the segment minus all headers.
> 
> Please try the following :
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/tcp.h b/include/linux/tcp.h
> index d68633452d9b..489b56935a56 100644
> --- a/include/linux/tcp.h
> +++ b/include/linux/tcp.h
> @@ -388,4 +388,16 @@ static inline int fastopen_init_queue(struct sock *sk, int backlog)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static inline unsigned int gso_size_with_headers(const struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> +	unsigned int hdrlen = skb_transport_header(skb) - skb_mac_header(skb);

or more exactly :

	unsigned int hdrlen = skb_transport_header(skb) - skb_network_header(skb);


> +
> +	if (skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type & (SKB_GSO_TCPV4 | SKB_GSO_TCPV6))
> +		hdrlen += tcp_hdrlen(skb);
> +	else
> +		hdrlen += 8; // sizeof(struct udphdr)
> +
> +	return skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size + hdrlen;
> +}


--
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