[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+FuTSepShKoXUJo7ELMMJ4La11J6CsZggJWsQ5MB2_uhAi+OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 09:19:43 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Dongseok Yi <dseok.yi@...sung.com>
Cc: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>,
Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf] bpf: check for data_len before upgrading mss when 6
to 4
> > That generates TCP packets with different MSS within the same stream.
> >
> > My suggestion remains to just not change MSS at all. But this has to
> > be a new flag to avoid changing established behavior.
>
> I don't understand why the mss size should be kept in GSO step. Will
> there be any issue with different mss?
This issue has come up before and that has been the feedback from
TCP experts at one point.
> In general, upgrading mss make sense when 6 to 4. The new flag would be
> set by user to not change mss. What happened if user does not set the
> flag? I still think we should fix the issue with a general approach. Or
> can we remove the skb_increase_gso_size line?
Admins that insert such BPF packets should be aware of these issues.
And likely be using clamping. This is a known issue.
We arrived that the flag approach in bpf_skb_net_shrink. Extending
that to bpf_skb_change_proto would be consistent.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists