netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] net: Add GSO support for UDP tunnels with checksum

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 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, 27 Sep 2014 23:39:30 +0300
From:	Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] net: Add GSO support for UDP tunnels with checksum

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:

>>> Added a new netif feature for GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM. This indicates
>>> that a device is capable of computing the UDP checksum in the
>>> encapsulating header of a UDP tunnel.

>> Do we have upstream driver that supports GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM? did you
>> had such driver/patch while doing this patches? when a driver
>> advertizes that bit, should they look over the xmit path on the new
>> encap_hdr_csum bit?

> No, no, and encap_hdr_csum should only be set with
> SKB_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM or SKB_GSO_GRE_CSUM.

I'm still trying to dig the bigger picture w.r.t checksum of the outer
UDP packet from the patches -- if I got it right, once these patches
were picked upstream, there's a scheme where the kernel either
computes this checksum or let the device do that - when they advertize
NETIF_F_GSO_YYY_CSUM  and in that case
(skb->encap_hdr_csum == true) should be interpreted as a directive to
do that, right?

So what happens when the device isn't capable to compute that checksum
(e.g they don't set _GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM) but they do advertize the
GSO_UDP_TUNNEL bit?

I was worried that we can run into this scheme - the stack computes
the outer checksum for the giant 64K UDP chunck that encapsulate a 64K
TCP segment, but when the NIC will issue the segmentation, they will
likely to just repeat ~40 times (64K/1500) the original udp checksum
for the packets they send, which will be treated as bad checksum on
the receiving end, bad.

> find . -name '*.[ch]' -exec fgrep -l GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM {} \;
> returns nothing.

grepping I know, I was just hoping you were able to test such a sensitive change
with HW that cause both code parts (outer udp checksum offloaded vs.
non-offloaded) to be exercised

> find . -name '*.[ch]' -exec fgrep -l GSO_UDP_TUNNEL {} \;
> returns
>
> ./ethernet/intel/i40e/i40e_main.c
> ./ethernet/broadcom/bnx2x/bnx2x_main.c
> ./ethernet/qlogic/qlcnic/qlcnic_main.c
> ./ethernet/mellanox/mlx4/en_netdev.c
> ./ethernet/emulex/benet/be_main.c

cool, I see here four 40Gbs NICs that support GSO offloading of VXLAN
traffic, each of them can serve you for testing new developments you
do in that area.

Or.
--
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