[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191213162559.GE2209@1wt.eu>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:25:59 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"William J. Tolley" <william@...akpointingbad.com>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <zx2c4@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] tcp: implement new per-interface sysctl "auto_dev_bind"
Hi Eric,
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 08:03:52AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Hi Willy, thanks for working on this.
Thanks for reviewing :-)
> Could you check if your patch works with syncookies mode ?
>
> echo 2 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies
Good catch:
[19401.670076] Call trace:
[19401.672494] tcp_v4_syn_recv_sock+0x168/0x250
[19401.676807] tcp_get_cookie_sock+0x4c/0xe4
[19401.680858] cookie_v4_check+0x470/0x4a8
[19401.684740] tcp_v4_do_rcv+0xf4/0x1c8
[19401.688362] tcp_v4_rcv+0x410/0x790
[19401.691815] ip_protocol_deliver_rcu+0x8c/0x128
[19401.696298] ip_local_deliver_finish+0x64/0x78
[19401.700696] ip_local_deliver+0x90/0x94
[19401.704491] ip_rcv_finish+0x3c/0x50
[19401.708027] ip_rcv+0x5c/0x74
[19401.710961] __netif_receive_skb_one_core+0x54/0x7c
[19401.715790] __netif_receive_skb+0x5c/0x64
[19401.719843] netif_receive_skb_internal+0x68/0xcc
[19401.724501] napi_gro_receive+0x70/0xa0
[19401.728298] gro_cell_poll+0x74/0x88
[19401.731832] net_rx_action+0x134/0x2c8
[19401.735543] __do_softirq+0x1bc/0x1fc
[19401.739165] irq_exit+0x60/0xb0
[19401.742270] __handle_domain_irq+0x6c/0x98
[19401.746322] gic_handle_irq+0x70/0xac
[19401.749945] el1_irq+0xb8/0x180
[19401.753052] arch_cpu_idle+0x10/0x18
[19401.756588] do_idle+0x134/0x22c
[19401.759778] cpu_startup_entry+0x20/0x3c
[19401.763660] rest_init+0xd0/0xdc
[19401.766852] arch_call_rest_init+0xc/0x14
[19401.770818] start_kernel+0x41c/0x448
[19401.774444] Code: 790bd261 aa1303e0 97ffbdd1 f9400ac0 (f9416000)
[19401.780485] ---[ end trace e08862982660f052 ]---
[19401.785049] Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt
> I wonder if your patch could be simpler if you were plugging the logic for passive
> flows in inet_request_bound_dev_if() ?
I'm not sure yet. For having had a quick lookk and tried to move the
code there, I feel like I'll need to distinguish the protocols (v4/v6)
in order to look at the per-interface configuration, while it's already
done in the caller. Or maybe there are some ipv4 settings that also
apply to ipv6 and we could do the same by having a single one for the
two maybe ?
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists