netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] udp: Do not require sock in udp_tunnel_xmit

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 20 Jan 2015 23:47:29 +0200
From:	Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] udp: Do not require sock in udp_tunnel_xmit_skb

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> The UDP tunnel transmit functions udp_tunnel_xmit_skb and
>>> udp_tunnel6_xmit_skb include a socket argument. The socket being
>>> passed to the functions (from VXLAN) is a UDP created for receive
>>> side. The only thing that the socket is used for in the transmit
>>> functions is to get the setting for checksum (enabled or zero).
>>
>> Tom, just to clarify - re the sockets usage in the transmit side,
>> somewhere bind or alike is done on them such that we have multiple
>> source UDP ports for given host VXLAN traffic. Here for example the
>> sender host is 192.168.31.17 and two ports are seen here 54206 and
>> 50795.
>>
>> Just wanted to make sure this series doesn't change that, since if
>> this is the case, we introduce here a regression w.r.t RSS hash
>> spreading from the outer UDP header data at the receiver side (which
>> is the right thing to do, per your LKS session...)
>>
> Hi Or,
>
> Using or not using a socket on transmit should have no bearing to the
> receive side. RSS works based on the hash of the UDP 5-tuple which
> should include a source port set to a value for the inner flow. Since
> the UDP socket is unconnected it should have no bearing on RFS or XPS
> either.

Hi Tom,

You say "which should include a source port set to a value for the
inner flow", well this series doesn't add such logic, nor I am fully
clear what piece exactly is responsible for the fact that I see
multiple source udp ports used from vxlan traffic flowing out of a
certain host. I just wanted to make sure that these patches don't
introduce a regression w.r.t to the **current** (not future) state of
things, can you confirm this?
--
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