netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/8] udp: skip fwd/list GRO for tunnel packets

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: <CA+FuTScT9W5V-ak=Wq_7zswyDRo9rzjOK1SQNRxESBCL93BOVQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Mar 2021 21:54:26 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc:     Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@...me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/8] udp: skip fwd/list GRO for tunnel packets

> > > and there are
> > > udp tunnel available in the system, we could end-up doing L4
> > > aggregation for packets targeting the UDP tunnel.
> >
> > Is this specific to UDP tunnels, or can this also occur with others,
> > such as GRE? (not implying that this patchset needs to address those
> > at the same time)

I suppose GRE tunnels do not advertise GSO_UDP_L4 support, so GSO
packets would get segmented before entering the tunnel device.

Forwarded datagrams exceeding egress device MTU (whether tunnel or
not) is a wholly separate problem.

> I did not look at that before your suggestion. Thanks for pointing out.
>
> I think the problem is specific to UDP: when processing the outer UDP
> header that is potentially eligible for both NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 and
> gro_receive aggregation and that is the root cause of the problem
> addressed here.

Can you elaborate on the exact problem? The commit mentions "inner
protocol corruption, as no overaly network parameters is taken in
account at aggregation time."

My understanding is that these are udp gro aggregated GSO_UDP_L4
packets forwarded to a udp tunnel device. They are not encapsulated
yet. Which overlay network parameters are not, but should have been,
taken account at aggregation time?

>
>
> > > Just skip the fwd GRO if this packet could land in an UDP
> > > tunnel.
> >
> > Could you make more clear that this does not skip UDP GRO, only
> > switches from fraglist-based to pure SKB_GSO_UDP_L4.
>
> Sure, I'll try to rewrite the commit message.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Paolo
>