[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140128085706.GB30123@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 09:57:06 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: ip, ipv6: handle gso skbs in forwarding path
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > + do {
> > + struct sk_buff *nskb = segs->next;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + segs->next = NULL;
> > + err = dst_output(segs);
> > +
> > + if (err && ret == 0)
> > + ret = err;
> > + segs = nskb;
> > + } while (segs);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
>
> Its still unclear if this is the best strategy.
>
> TCP stream not using DF flag are very unlikely to care if we adjust
> their MTU (lowering gso_size) at this point ?
Thanks for this suggestion. It would indeed be nice to avoid sw
segmentation. I tried:
static void ip_gso_adjust_seglen(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
unsigned int mtu;
if (!skb_is_gso(skb))
return;
mtu = ip_dst_mtu_maybe_forward(skb_dst(skb), true);
skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size = mtu - sizeof(struct iphdr);
}
But this yields
[ 28.644776] kernel BUG at net/net/core/skbuff.c:2984!
[ 28.644776] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
[ 28.644776] CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.13.0+ #35
[ 28.644776] task: ffffffff818104c0 ti: ffffffff81800000 task.ti: ffffffff81800000
[ 28.644776] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff813b10d8>] [<ffffffff813b10d8>] skb_segment+0x808/0x830
[ 28.644776] RSP: 0018:ffff88002fc03688 EFLAGS: 00010212
[ 28.644776] RAX: 000000000000047c RBX: ffff88002d614b00 RCX: ffff88002d72ab00
[ 28.644776] RDX: 000000000000047c RSI: 00000000000050fa RDI: ffff88002cf9f800
[ 28.644776] RBP: ffff88002fc03778 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff88002cdaf300
[ 28.644776] R10: 0000000000000011 R11: 0000000000004ff2 R12: ffff88002cf9ff80
[ 28.644776] R13: 0000000000000011 R14: 00000000000050fa R15: 00000000000054a2
[ 28.644776] FS: 00007f27db007700(0000) GS:ffff88002fc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
[ 28.644776] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
[ 28.644776] CR2: 00007f8176cedcfc CR3: 000000002cd14000 CR4: 00000000000006b0
[ 28.644776] Stack:
[ 28.644776] 0000000000000046 ffffffff00000014 0000000000000001 ffffffff00000022
[ 28.644776] ffff88002cdaf300 ffff88002d72aaf0 0000000000000000 0000000000004ff2
[ 28.644776] 0000000000000014 ffffffff818104c0 ffffffff81810bc8 ffffffffffffffbe
[ 28.644776] Call Trace:
[ 28.644776] <IRQ>
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff8125e742>] ? number.isra.1+0x302/0x330
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff8142f35e>] tcp_gso_segment+0x11e/0x3f0
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff8143f2c9>] inet_gso_segment+0x129/0x350
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff810832cf>] ? __lock_acquire+0x2ef/0x1ca0
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff813bcd9d>] skb_mac_gso_segment+0xdd/0x1e0
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff813bcd07>] ? skb_mac_gso_segment+0x47/0x1e0
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff813bcf00>] __skb_gso_segment+0x60/0xc0
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff813bd203>] dev_hard_start_xmit+0x183/0x5b0
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff813e064e>] sch_direct_xmit+0xfe/0x280
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff813bd843>] __dev_queue_xmit+0x213/0x6b0
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff813bd635>] ? __dev_queue_xmit+0x5/0x6b0
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff813bdcf0>] dev_queue_xmit+0x10/0x20
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff8140c2a9>] ip_finish_output+0x419/0x600
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff8140c4de>] ? ip_output+0x4e/0xc0
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff810803e4>] ? __lock_is_held+0x54/0x80
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff8140c4de>] ip_output+0x4e/0xc0
[ 28.644776] [<ffffffff81407ffb>] ip_forward+0x21b/0x650
Eric, any chance you know wheter mucking with gso_size in this way
is supposed to work?
I will go through skb_segment and see if I can find out what exactly causes this
BUG_ON to trigger.
--
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