Message-ID: <0d78303a-31b2-f59c-2b47-0e684ff0f629@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:38:49 -0700
From:   Greg Rose <gvrose8192@...il.com>
To:     Joe Stringer <joe@....org>
Cc:     netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, ovs dev <dev@...nvswitch.org>,
        Pravin Shalar <pshelar@...ira.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] datapath: Fix for force/commit action failures

On 07/13/2017 11:03 AM, Joe Stringer wrote:
> On 13 July 2017 at 11:01, Greg Rose <gvrose8192@...il.com> wrote:
>> On 07/13/2017 10:46 AM, Joe Stringer wrote:
>>>
>>> On 13 July 2017 at 09:25, Greg Rose <gvrose8192@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When there is an established connection in direction A->B, it is
>>>> possible to receive a packet on port B which then executes
>>>> ct(commit,force) without first performing ct() - ie, a lookup.
>>>> In this case, we would expect that this packet can delete the existing
>>>> entry so that we can commit a connection with direction B->A. However,
>>>> currently we only perform a check in skb_nfct_cached() for whether
>>>> OVS_CS_F_TRACKED is set and OVS_CS_F_INVALID is not set, ie that a
>>>> lookup previously occurred. In the above scenario, a lookup has not
>>>> occurred but we should still be able to statelessly look up the
>>>> existing entry and potentially delete the entry if it is in the
>>>> opposite direction.
>>>>
>>>> This patch extends the check to also hint that if the action has the
>>>> force flag set, then we will lookup the existing entry so that the
>>>> force check at the end of skb_nfct_cached has the ability to delete
>>>> the connection.
>>>>
>>>> CC: dev@...nvswitch.org
>>>> CC: Pravin Shalar <pshelar@...ira.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <joe@....org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Greg Rose <gvrose8192@...il.com>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>> A couple more administrative notes, on netdev the module name in the
>>> patch subject for openvswitch is "openvswitch" rather than datapath;
>>
>>
>> Right you are.
>>
>>> and patches rather than having just "PATCH" as the subject prefix
>>> should state the tree. In this case, it's a bugfix so it should be
>>> "PATCH net".
>>
>>
>> I knew that... forgot the format patch option to add it.  Net-next
>> is closed so that would be mandatory.
>>
>>   Furthermore, if you're able to figure out which commit
>>>
>>> introduced the issue (I believe it's introduced by the force commit
>>> patch), then you should place the "Fixes: " tag. I can give you some
>>> pointers off-list on how to do this (git blame and some basic
>>> formatting of the targeted patch should do the trick - this tag
>>> expects a 12-digit hash).
>>>
>>> For reference, I ended up looking it up during review, this is the
>>> line you'd add:
>>> Fixes: dd41d33f0b03 ("openvswitch: Add force commit.")
>>
>>
>> Oh, thanks!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>    net/openvswitch/conntrack.c | 12 ++++++++----
>>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c b/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>>>> index 08679eb..9041cf8 100644
>>>> --- a/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>>>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>>>> @@ -641,17 +641,21 @@ static bool skb_nfct_cached(struct net *net,
>>>>           ct = nf_ct_get(skb, &ctinfo);
>>>>           /* If no ct, check if we have evidence that an existing
>>>> conntrack entry
>>>>            * might be found for this skb.  This happens when we lose a
>>>> skb->_nfct
>>>> -        * due to an upcall.  If the connection was not confirmed, it is
>>>> not
>>>> -        * cached and needs to be run through conntrack again.
>>>> +        * due to an upcall, or if the direction is being forced.  If the
>>>> +        * connection was not confirmed, it is not cached and needs to be
>>>> run
>>>> +        * through conntrack again.
>>>>            */
>>>> -       if (!ct && key->ct_state & OVS_CS_F_TRACKED &&
>>>> +       if ((!ct && (key->ct_state & OVS_CS_F_TRACKED) &&
>>>>               !(key->ct_state & OVS_CS_F_INVALID) &&
>>>> -           key->ct_zone == info->zone.id) {
>>>> +            key->ct_zone == info->zone.id) ||
>>>> +            (!key->ct_state && info->force)) {
>>>>                   ct = ovs_ct_find_existing(net, &info->zone,
>>>> info->family, skb,
>>>>                                             !!(key->ct_state
>>>>                                                & OVS_CS_F_NAT_MASK));
>>>>                   if (ct)
>>>>                           nf_ct_get(skb, &ctinfo);
>>>> +               else
>>>> +                       return false;
>>>>           }
>>>>           if (!ct)
>>>>                   return false;
>>>
>>>
>>> I was just wondering if this has the potential to prevent
>>> nf_conntrack_in() from being called at all in this case, which is also
>>> not quite right. In the original case of (!ct && (key->ct_state &
>>> OVS_CS_F_TRACKED) && !(key->ct_state & OVS_CS_F_TRACKED)), which I'll
>>> refer to as "ct_executed", we explicitly want to avoid running
>>> nf_conntrack_in() if we already ran it, because the connection tracker
>>> doesn't expect to see the same packet twice (there's also things like
>>> stats/accounting, and potentially L4 state machines that could get
>>> messed up by multiple calls). By the time the info->force and
>>> direction check happens at the end of the function, "ct_executed" is
>>> implied to be true. However, in this new case, ct_executed is actually
>>> false - because there was no ct() before the ct(force,commit). In this
>>> case, we only want to look up the existing entry to see if it should
>>> be deleted; if it should not be deleted, then we still haven't yet
>>> done the nf_conntrack_in() call so we should return false and the
>>> caller, __ovs_ct_lookup() should make the call to nf_conntrack_in().
>>>
>>> What I mean is something like the following incremental on your patch:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c b/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>>> index 9041cf8b822f..98783f114824 100644
>>> --- a/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/conntrack.c
>>> @@ -637,6 +637,7 @@ static bool skb_nfct_cached(struct net *net,
>>> {
>>>          enum ip_conntrack_info ctinfo;
>>>          struct nf_conn *ct;
>>> +       bool ct_executed;
>>>
>>>          ct = nf_ct_get(skb, &ctinfo);
>>>          /* If no ct, check if we have evidence that an existing conntrack
>>> entry
>>> @@ -645,10 +646,10 @@ static bool skb_nfct_cached(struct net *net,
>>>           * connection was not confirmed, it is not cached and needs to be
>>> run
>>>           * through conntrack again.
>>>           */
>>> -       if ((!ct && (key->ct_state & OVS_CS_F_TRACKED) &&
>>> -           !(key->ct_state & OVS_CS_F_INVALID) &&
>>> -            key->ct_zone == info->zone.id) ||
>>> -            (!key->ct_state && info->force)) {
>>> +       ct_executed = key->ct_state & OVS_CS_F_TRACKED &&
>>> +                     !(key->ct_state & OVS_CS_F_INVALID) &&
>>> +                     key->ct_zone == info->zone.id;

This part seems fine - I'm OK with setting a boolean on all the complex
conditionals *but* we shouldn't be doing that if ct is set.  And this is
fast path right?  So this code is losing the 'if (!ct...)' and that is
one of the first things checked.  When I was debugging ct would often
be set because of the first pass through ovs_ct_execute had done the
ovs_ct_lookup() call.  I'm not very comfortable with executing the
code to set the ct_executed variable without first checking if ct
was set in the call to nf_ct_get().

I'll incorporate your suggestion but include something to skip all the
conditionals if ct is set unless you can see some reason not to.

Thanks,

- Greg

>>> +       if (!ct && (ct_executed || (!key->ct_state && info->force))) {
>>
>>
>> All the conditional cases are really ugly and tough to follow but you know
>> this code better than I do so let me try this out and see if it works to
>> fix the specific bug I'm focused on.
> 
> I completely agree, and this is something we could work on trying to
> improve. Even some refactoring like what I suggested here to simplify
> several bitwise comparisons into a single bool that states the
> intention of those checks should help. But this is a bugfix, we
> shouldn't be doing a wohle bunch of refactoring in a bugfix; that can
> come when the window
> opens.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joe
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists