| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140424072611.GA31483@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:26:11 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...e.fr,
nightnord@...il.com, kaber@...sh.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
jasowang@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mactap: Fix checksum errors for non-gso packets in
bridge mode
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 04:30:22PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> On 04/23/2014 04:10 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:39:44PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> >> On 04/23/2014 03:20 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 12:51:40PM -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> >>>> The following is a problematic configuration:
> >>>>
> >>>> VM1: virtio-net device connected to macvtap0@...0
> >>>> VM2: e1000 device connect to macvtap1@...0
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem is is that virtio-net supports checksum offloading
> >>>> and thus sends the packets to the host with CHECKSUM_PARTIAL set.
> >>>> On the other hand, e1000 does not support any acceleration.
> >>>>
> >>>> For small TCP packets (and this includes the 3-way handshake),
> >>>> e1000 ends up receiving packets that only have a partial checksum
> >>>> set. This causes TCP to fail checksum validation and to drop
> >>>> packets. As a result tcp connections can not be established.
> >>>>
> >>>> Commit 3e4f8b787370978733ca6cae452720a4f0c296b8
> >>>> macvtap: Perform GSO on forwarding path.
> >>>> fixes this issue for large packets wthat will end up undergoing GSO.
> >>>> This commit adds a check for the non-GSO case and attempts to
> >>>> compute the checksum for partially checksummed packets in the
> >>>> non-GSO case.
> >>>>
> >>>> CC: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...e.fr>
> >>>> CC: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
> >>>> CC: Andrian Nord <nightnord@...il.com>
> >>>> CC: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> >>>> CC: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> >>>> CC: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic@...hat.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> drivers/net/macvtap.c | 7 +++++++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/macvtap.c b/drivers/net/macvtap.c
> >>>> index ff111a8..ba91084 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/net/macvtap.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/net/macvtap.c
> >>>> @@ -322,6 +322,13 @@ static rx_handler_result_t macvtap_handle_frame(struct sk_buff **pskb)
> >>>> segs = nskb;
> >>>> }
> >>>> } else {
> >>>> + /* If we receive a partial checksum and the tap side
> >>>> + * doesn't support checksum offload, compute the checksum.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_PARTIAL &&
> >>>> + !(features & NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM) &&
> >>>> + skb_checksum_help(skb))
> >>>> + goto drop;
> >>>
> >>> Hmm confused by NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM here.
> >>>
> >>> features come from here:
> >>> feature_mask = NETIF_F_HW_CSUM;
> >>>
> >>> if (arg & (TUN_F_TSO4 | TUN_F_TSO6)) {
> >>> if (arg & TUN_F_TSO_ECN)
> >>> feature_mask |= NETIF_F_TSO_ECN;
> >>> if (arg & TUN_F_TSO4)
> >>> feature_mask |= NETIF_F_TSO;
> >>> if (arg & TUN_F_TSO6)
> >>> feature_mask |= NETIF_F_TSO6;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> if (arg & TUN_F_UFO)
> >>> feature_mask |= NETIF_F_UFO;
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> okay so why not just check that NETIF_F_HW_CSUM is set?
> >>
> >> We can do that, but it doesn't make much difference.
> >
> > Seems cleaner to test a single bit otherwise one is left
> > wondering what happens if only one bit matches.
>
> I can certainly do a single test, but if we ever change it,
> this will be another palace that would have to change.
Hmm change what exactly? Add support for selectively
disabling checksum for specific protocols?
> The above is also what dev_start_hard_xmit() does.
Yes and I was wondering about that too, but check it out: that one
calls: netif_skb_dev_features which in turn calls harmonize_features.
And there we have:
if (skb->ip_summed != CHECKSUM_NONE &&
!can_checksum_protocol(features, skb_network_protocol(skb, &tmp))) {
features &= ~NETIF_F_ALL_CSUM;
} else if (illegal_highdma(dev, skb)) {
features &= ~NETIF_F_SG;
}
So NETIF_F_HW_CSUM is tested because it's cleared by a per-protocol
handling here which is not there in your patch.
Your patch is still correct - the reason harmonize_features is not
necessary is because tap either sets HW_CSUM or nothing,
can_checksum_protocol is always true or always false. But since we rely
on this anyway, isn't it better to make this explicit?
Alternatively let's clarify the comment here:
> >>>> + /* If we receive a partial checksum and the tap side
> >>>> + * doesn't support checksum offload, compute the checksum.
Add:
+ * Note: it doesn't matter which checksum feature to
+ * check, we either support them all or none.
> >>>> + */
Fine?
> >
> >>>
> >>> Also does it matter whether specific offloads are enabled?
> >>>
> >>
> >> No it doesn't matter at all. The packet is not a GSO packet
> >> so no other acceleration is used.
> >
> > Hmm how do we know it's not a gso packet?
> > All I see is need_gso test which means it needs segmentation.
>
> Part of netif_needs_gso() is a test for skb_is_gso(). So it
> it's gso and doesn't need segmentation (meaning the guest can
> receive large packets), then partial checksum is OK.
That is correct- thanks for the clarification.
> >
> >
> >> Also, other offloads are dependent on checksum.
> >>
> >> -vlad
> >
> > Right so what if checksum is on, but segmentation is off?
> > Not the case with e1000 today but can be with other userspace.
> >
>
> In this case, the skb will be in need to segmentation and will take
> a different branch.
>
> -vlad
> >
> >>>
> >>>> skb_queue_tail(&q->sk.sk_receive_queue, skb);
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 1.9.0
--
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