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  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]
Date:	Sat, 05 Apr 2014 00:08:52 +0900
From:	Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>
To:	vyasevic@...hat.com
Cc:	Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vlan: Try to adjust lower device mtu when
 configuring 802.1AD vlans

On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 09:07 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> On 04/03/2014 04:32 AM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> > (2014/04/03 1:44), Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> >> On 04/02/2014 12:37 PM, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 09:31 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> >>>> On 04/02/2014 08:21 AM, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 01, 2014 at 05:17:34PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> >>>>>> 802.1AD vlans supposed to encapsulate 802.1Q vlans.  To
> >>>>>> do this, we need an extra 4 bytes of header which are typically
> >>>>>> not accounted for by lower devices.  Some devices can not
> >>>>>> support frames longer then 1522 bytes at all.  Such devices
> >>>>>> can not really support 802.1AD, even in software, without
> >>>>>> the vlan reducing its mtu value.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This patch propses to increate the lower devices MTU to 1504
> >>>>>> in case of 802.1AD configuration, and if device doesn't
> >>>>>> support it, fail the creation of the vlan.  The user has an
> >>>>>> option to configure older-style Q-in-Q vlans and manually
> >>>>>> lower the mtu to support such encapsulation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you should do the opposite. The lower layer device may be used
> >>>>> for other things than the VLAN, so it doesn't seem right to change it's
> >>>>> MTU. Instead I'd propose to set the MTU of the 802.1ad VLAN device to
> >>>>> the lower device'e MTU - 4 unless a MTU has been specified by the user.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The decrease of vlan mtu was my initial take on this as well.  The
> >>>> problematic case with this is forwarding by an encapsulating
> >>>> bridge (bridge that has 802.1AD as one port and ethX as others). The
> >>>> frame from ethX will not fit into the mtu of the vlan device in
> >>>> this case and the packet is dropped.  Ideally, we'd generate and ICMP
> >>>> Too Big, but with the bridge we can't/don't do that.
> >>>>
> >>>> Another problem is that linux assumes that MTU == MRU in case of
> >>>> device receive buffer programming.  Thus, full sized 802.1AD
> >>>> frames transmitted by the switch supporting it will probably get dropped
> >>>> by the driver/firmware as too long.  I've tested this and saw it
> >>>> happen on my systems.
> >>>>
> >>>> An alternative I've thought off is to adjust the rx size in the drivers
> >>>> when 802.1AD is configured, but that touches all the drivers, and
> >>>> doesn't work well for not vlan-filtering drivers.  It needs a new
> >>>> ndo api to adjust the rx length to make it consistent across all
> >>>> devices.
> >>>>
> >>>>> BTW, I couldn't find anything related to MTU handling in the 802.1ad
> >>>>> standard, however I only have an old copy and might have looked in the
> >>>>> wrong place. Do you have any information how this is supposed to be
> >>>>> handled?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The standard doesn't seem to mention anything about it, but looking
> >>>> at switch implementations, most of them require a bump in the mtu to
> >>>> 1504 to support 802.1AD.  Some allow for the decrease in vlan mtu, but
> >>>> that also requires mss translations as well.
> >>>
> >>> 802.1ad was merged into 802.1Q-2011, and G.2.2 in it refers to maximum
> >>> pdu size. However, this doesn't seem to mention the case where frames
> >>> are double tagged.
> >>>
> >>> MEF 6.1 requires UNI MTU size >= 1522 and MEF 31 requires E-NNI MTU size
> >>>> = 1526 (In these documents, MTU seems to mean frame size).
> >>> This implies that we should allow 1508 bytes of MTU size when we use
> >>> 802.1AD.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 1522 = 1500 + 14 + 4 (.1Q) + 4 (FCS)
> >>
> >>> Is 1504 enough?
> >>
> >> 1526 = 1500 + 14 +4 (.1Q) + 4 (.1AD) + 4(FCS)
> > 
> > Thank you for the supplementation.
> > 
> >>
> >> This is why Cisco docs recommend mtu of 1504.
> >>
> >> Of course this doesn't in any way account for stacked .1AD tags.
> > 
> > So we are likely to receive 1508 (1526) sized frames in 802.1ad network.
> 
> 1526 byte frame is 1504 mtu, as demonstrated above.

Not so sure.
It's true only if NIC reserves extra 4 bytes for mtu.
If the outer 802.1ad tag is not recognized as a vlan tag by NIC, both
the outer tag and the inner tag are not ethernet header but payload to
the NIC.

> 
> > Is it correct that you confirmed most NICs can receive 1508 sized frames
> > with 1504 mtu size setting?
> 
> Some might, but I haven't confirmed that.  Most NICs already account for
> 802.1Q header in their receive buffer calculations.  Some nics jump
> to the 2K rx size and enable jumbo mode once rx size goes above 1522
> bytes.  I think those will be able to receive larger frames. 

Thank you very much, got it.

> Others
> don't support jumbo mode at all.  These nics can't support 802.1AD
> without reducing mtu on the vlan interface itself.  

Doesn't setting mtu to 1508 help us in some cases?

Thanks,
Toshiaki Makita

> That, however, leads
> to other necessary configuration changes which is why this proposal
> leaves it up to the user to configure.


--
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