[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12940.1452630168@famine>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 12:22:48 -0800
From: Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
To: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>
cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: take care of bonding in build_skb_flow_key (v2)
Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com> wrote:
>In a bonding setting, we determines fragment size according to MTU and
>PMTU associated to the bonding master. If the slave finds the fragment
>size is too big, it drops the fragment and calls ip_rt_update_pmtu(),
>passing _skb_ and _pmtu_, trying to update the path MTU.
>Problem is that the target device that function ip_rt_update_pmtu actually
>tries to update is the slave (skb->dev), not the master. Thus since no
>PMTU change happens on master, the fragment size for later packets doesn't
>change so all later fragments/packets are dropped too.
>
>The fix is letting build_skb_flow_key() take care of the transition of
>device index from bonding slave to the master. That makes the master become
>the target device that ip_rt_update_pmtu tries to update PMTU to.
Does the team driver have the equivalent issue?
>Signed-off-by: Wengang Wang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>
>---
> net/ipv4/route.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
>index 85f184e..fffc7e6 100644
>--- a/net/ipv4/route.c
>+++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
>@@ -523,10 +523,18 @@ static void build_skb_flow_key(struct flowi4 *fl4, const struct sk_buff *skb,
> const struct sock *sk)
> {
> const struct iphdr *iph = ip_hdr(skb);
>- int oif = skb->dev->ifindex;
> u8 tos = RT_TOS(iph->tos);
>+ struct net_device *master;
> u8 prot = iph->protocol;
> u32 mark = skb->mark;
>+ int oif;
>+
>+ if (skb->dev->flags & IFF_SLAVE) {
>+ master = netdev_master_upper_dev_get(skb->dev);
>+ oif = master->ifindex;
>+ } else {
>+ oif = skb->dev->ifindex;
>+ }
netdev_master_upper_dev_get() requires RTNL to be held; I don't
see that all callers to build_skb_flow_key will do so.
I also believe the above would dereference a NULL pointer if an
eql device is configured, as it uses IFF_SLAVE but doesn't use the
upper/lower device infrastructure, thus, netdev_master_upper_dev_get()
would likely return NULL for eql.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, jay.vosburgh@...onical.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists