[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1384727914.8604.64.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 14:38:34 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>
Cc: Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.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 Sun, 2013-11-17 at 11:00 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-11-16 at 23:31 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> >> In case of VMs sending gso packets over tap and tunnel in the host,
> >> ip_forward is not in the picture.
> >>
> >
> > I was specifically answering to #2 which should use ip forwarding, of
> > course. Note that my patch was a POC : We have many other places where
> > the typical MTU check is simply disabled as soon as skb is GSO.
>
> I don't think #2 will do ip_forward either. veth goes into a bridge
> and vxlan just adds encap.
The point is : nothing really checks mtu for gso packets.
Same construct was copy/pasted everywhere. See br_dev_queue_push_xmit()
for another example.
In this particular case, I guess vxlan should generate the ICMP.
But really, its Sunday and I currently do not care ;)
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists