netdev - Re: [QUESTION] Doubt about NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is

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]

Message-ID: <CAKgT0UczVO4xQmxBoJnJn27hget8_zk2yYXMtKs52uEUGVwZCg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:24:51 -0800
From:   Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "linuxarm@...wei.com" <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        yuxiaowu@...ilicon.com, wzhen.wang@...ilicon.com,
        Xuehuahu <xuehuahu@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] Doubt about NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is_atomic in tcpv4 gro process

On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 1:09 AM, Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com> wrote:
> Hi, all
>         I have some doubt about NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is_atomic when
> analyzing the tcpv4 gro process:
>
> Firstly we set NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is_atomic to 1 in dev_gro_receive:
> https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc4/source/net/core/dev.c#L4838
>
> And then in inet_gro_receive, we check the NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is_atomic
> before setting NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is_atomic according to IP_DF bit in the ip header:
> https://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/v4.15-rc4/source/net/ipv4/af_inet.c#L1319
>
> struct sk_buff **inet_gro_receive(struct sk_buff **head, struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> .....................
>         for (p = *head; p; p = p->next) {
> ........................
>
>                 /* If the previous IP ID value was based on an atomic
>                  * datagram we can overwrite the value and ignore it.
>                  */
>                 if (NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is_atomic)                      //we check it here
>                         NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->flush_id = flush_id;
>                 else
>                         NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->flush_id |= flush_id;
>         }
>
>         NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is_atomic = !!(iph->frag_off & htons(IP_DF));  //we set it here
>         NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->flush |= flush;
>         skb_set_network_header(skb, off);
> ................................
> }
>
> My question is whether we should check the NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is_atomic or NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->is_atomic?
> If we should check NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is_atomic, then maybe it is unnecessary because it is alway true.
> If we should check NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->is_atomic, maybe there is a bug here.
>
> So what is the logic here? I am just start analyzing the gro, maybe I miss something obvious here.

The logic there is to address the multiple IP header case where there
are 2 or more IP headers due to things like VXLAN or GRE tunnels. So
what will happen is that an outer IP header will end up being sent
with DF not set and will clear the is_atomic value then we want to OR
in the next header that is applied. It defaults to assignment on
is_atomic because the first IP header will encounter flush_id with no
previous configuration occupying it.

The part I am not sure about is if we should be using assignment for
is_atomic or using an "&=" to clear the bit and leave it cleared. I
don't know if there has been much testing of multiple levels of tunnel
header.

Thanks.

- Alex