[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b8dcde8c-ce7b-588a-49c1-0cf315794613@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:30:18 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dahern@...italocean.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: virtio_net: can change MTU after installing program
On 2020/2/26 下午4:39, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 02:37:01AM -0500, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 08:32:14PM -0700, David Ahern wrote:
>>>> Another issue is that virtio_net checks the MTU when a program is
>>>> installed, but does not restrict an MTU change after:
>>>>
>>>> # ip li sh dev eth0
>>>> 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 xdp qdisc fq_codel
>>>> state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
>>>> link/ether 5a:39:e6:01:a5:36 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
>>>> prog/xdp id 13 tag c5595e4590d58063 jited
>>>>
>>>> # ip li set dev eth0 mtu 8192
>>>>
>>>> # ip li sh dev eth0
>>>> 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 8192 xdp qdisc fq_codel
>>>> state UP mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
>>> Well the reason XDP wants to limit MTU is this:
>>> the MTU must be less than a page
>>> size to avoid having to handle XDP across multiple pages
>>>
>> But even if we limit MTU is guest there's no way to limit the packet
>> size on host.
> Isn't this fundamental? IIUC dev->mtu is mostly a hint to devices about
> how the network is configured. It has to be the same across LAN. If
> someone misconfigures it that breaks networking, and user gets to keep
> both pieces. E.g. e1000 will use dev->mtu to calculate rx buffer size.
> If you make it too small, well packets that are too big get dropped.
> There's no magic to somehow make them smaller, or anything like that.
> We can certainly drop packet > dev->mtu in the driver right now if we want to,
> and maybe if it somehow becomes important for performance, we
> could teach host to drop such packets for us. Though
> I don't really see why we care ...
>
>> It looks to me we need to introduce new commands to
>> change the backend MTU (e.g TAP) accordingly.
>>
>> Thanks
> So you are saying there are configurations where host does not know the
> correct MTU, and needs guest's help to figure it out?
Yes.
> I guess it's
> possible but it seems beside the point raised here. TAP in particular
> mostly just seems to ignore MTU, I am not sure why we should bother
> propagating it there from guest or host. Propagating it from guest to
> the actual NIC might be useful e.g. for buffer sizing, but is tricky
> to do safely in case the NIC is shared between VMs.
Macvlan passthrough mode could be easier I guess.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists