[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181023102906.GN3823@gauss3.secunet.de>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:29:06 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/10] udp: cope with UDP GRO packet misdirection
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 02:51:56PM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > +
> > > +static int udp_queue_rcv_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > +{
> > > + struct sk_buff *next, *segs;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (likely(!udp_unexpected_gso(sk, skb)))
> > > + return udp_queue_rcv_one_skb(sk, skb);
> > > +
> > > + BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct udp_skb_cb) > SKB_SGO_CB_OFFSET);
> > > + __skb_push(skb, -skb_mac_offset(skb));
> > > + segs = udp_rcv_segment(sk, skb);
> > > + for (skb = segs; skb; skb = next) {
> > > + next = skb->next;
> > > + __skb_pull(skb, skb_transport_offset(skb));
> > > + ret = udp_queue_rcv_one_skb(sk, skb);
> >
> > udp_queue_rcv_one_skb() starts with doing a xfrm4_policy_check().
> > Maybe we can do this on the GSO packet instead of the segments.
> > So far this code is just for handling a corner case, but this might
> > change.
>
> I thought about keeping the policy check here, but then I preferred
> what looked the safest option. Perhaps we can improve with a follow-up?
Fair enough. Let's keep it in mind and do it later.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists