[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN3PR0201MB10592F17F9CC717E46A738B0F9D80@BN3PR0201MB1059.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 17:29:14 +0000
From: Alan Davey <Alan.Davey@...aswitch.com>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
CC: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: doubt about the behaviour of a Linux IPv4 raw socket, with the IP_HDRINCL option set, rejecting a packet bigger than the outgoing interface’s MTU size
Folks
I have a doubt about the behaviour of a Linux IPv4 raw socket, with the IP_HDRINCL option set, rejecting a packet bigger than the outgoing interface’s MTU size with EMSGSIZE. Please take a look at the following and let me know if I should make a kernel code change to remove this behaviour and fragment the packet instead.
- raw_send_hdrinc() (net/ipv4/raw.c) has an explicit check for (length > rt->dst.dev->mtu), returning -EMSGSIZE if this is true.
- I do not understand the reason for this restriction. If a packet was received on one interface and routed out through another interface with a smaller MTU then the packet would be fragmented. Why is a locally originated packet treated differently?
- I note that the “raw(7) - Linux man page” lists “When the IP_HDRINCL option is set, datagrams will not be fragmented and are limited to the interface MTU” as a known bug.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards
Alan Davey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists