[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140210124346.GA6329@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:43:46 +0100
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net: ip, ipv6: handle gso skbs in forwarding path
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:23:31PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote:
> > > > > 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!
> > > >
> > > > Yep, lets CC Herbert Xu, as he 'owns' skb_segment()
> > >
> > > IMHO we should just stop merging ~DF packets altogether, at least
> > > for TCP.
> >
> > Eric, you added DF aggregation in db8caf3dbc77599dc90f4ea0a803cd1d97116f30
> > (gro: should aggregate frames without DF).
> >
> > I guess you don't want to revert this commit?
> > Any other ideas?
> >
> > skb_gso_segment() is already very complex, I don't want to add more code
> > to it. And that seems unavoidable if we need to de-couple nr_frags and
> > gso_size.
>
> I don't think adding all this complexity just to be able to
> aggregate ~DF packets (which are just wrong to begin with) is
> worth it.
>
> If aggregating ~DF packets was a one-liner then sure, but there
> is a reason why I didn't aggregate them in the first place and
> you've found it :)
Well we could go with my original patch that will do software
segmentation on ~DF packets in the forwarding path if the outmtu is too
small for the individual packets. The output path then simply
creates fragments.
Eric suggested to shrink gso_size instead to avoid segmentation+fragments.
I think its nice idea, but skb_gso_segment makes certain assumptions about
nr_frags and gso_size (it can't handle frag size > desired mss).
Hannes pointed out that we'd also need to deal with
SKB_MAX_FRAGS * gso_size exceeding fragments.
Quite frankly, I'd prefer to go with
skb_gso_segment(skb, features & ~NETIF_F_GSO_MASK);
The scenario is rare anyway given the number of bug reports (or lack
thereof) about '~DF tcp doesn't work with gro in fwd path when output
mtu is too small'.
Its not like this could never be improved later on.
Best regards,
Florian
--
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