netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/8] udp: fixup csum for GSO receive slow path

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+FuTSdjtTmtuETr9g+EAmdjpiDwWMFs7w6V8519or0-8QFasg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Mar 2021 18:37:10 -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 v2 1/8] udp: fixup csum for GSO receive slow path

On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 12:24 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 11:24 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 11:01 AM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2021-03-29 at 09:52 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > > > +       if (skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_NONE && !skb->csum_valid)
> > > > > +               skb->csum_valid = 1;
> > > >
> > > > Not entirely obvious is that UDP packets arriving on a device with rx
> > > > checksum offload off, i.e., with CHECKSUM_NONE, are not matched by
> > > > this test.
> > > >
> > > > I assume that such packets are not coalesced by the GRO layer in the
> > > > first place. But I can't immediately spot the reason for it..
> >
> > As you point out, such packets will already have had their checksum
> > verified at this point, so this branch only matches tunneled packets.
> > That point is just not immediately obvious from the code.
>
> I understand is a matter of comment clarity ?!?
>
> I'll rewrite the related code comment - in udp_post_segment_fix_csum()
> - as:
>
>         /* UDP packets generated with UDP_SEGMENT and traversing:
>          *
>          * UDP tunnel(xmit) -> veth (segmentation) -> veth (gro) -> UDP tunnel (rx)
>          *
>          * land here with CHECKSUM_NONE, because __iptunnel_pull_header() converts
>          * CHECKSUM_PARTIAL into NONE.
>          * SKB_GSO_UDP_L4 or SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST packets with no UDP tunnel will land
>          * here with valid checksum, as the GRO engine validates the UDP csum
>          * before the aggregation and nobody strips such info in between.
>          * Instead of adding another check in the tunnel fastpath, we can force
>          * a valid csum here.
>          * Additionally fixup the UDP CB.
>          */
>
> Would that be clear enough?

Definitely. Thanks!

> > > I do see checksum validation in the GRO engine for CHECKSUM_NONE UDP
> > > packet prior to this series.
> > >
> > > I *think* the checksum-and-copy optimization is lost
> > > since 573e8fca255a27e3573b51f9b183d62641c47a3d.
> >
> > Wouldn't this have been introduced with UDP_GRO?
>
> Uhmm.... looks like the checksum-and-copy optimization has been lost
> and recovered a few times. I think the last one
> with 9fd1ff5d2ac7181844735806b0a703c942365291, which move the csum
> validation before the static branch on udp_encap_needed_key.
>
> Can we agree re-introducing the optimization is independent from this
> series?

Yep :)
> Thanks!
>
> Paolo
>
>