netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 02/12] ipv6: add IFLA_GSO_IPV6_MAX

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: <CANn89i+f0PGo86pD4XGS4FpjkcHwh-Nb2=r5D6=jp2jbgTY+nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 May 2022 14:50:40 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 02/12] ipv6: add IFLA_GSO_IPV6_MAX_SIZE

On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 2:37 PM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 2:20 PM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 6, 2022 at 1:48 PM Alexander H Duyck
> > <alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2022-05-06 at 08:30 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > > From: Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>
> > > >
> > > > This enables ipv6/TCP stacks to build TSO packets bigger than
> > > > 64KB if the driver is LSOv2 compatible.
> > > >
> > > > This patch introduces new variable gso_ipv6_max_size
> > > > that is modifiable through ip link.
> > > >
> > > > ip link set dev eth0 gso_ipv6_max_size 185000
> > > >
> > > > User input is capped by driver limit (tso_max_size)
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Coco Li <lixiaoyan@...gle.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > So I am still not a fan of adding all this extra tooling to make an
> > > attribute that is just being applied to one protocol. Why not just
> > > allow gso_max_size to extend beyond 64K and only limit it by
> > > tso_max_size?
> >
> > Answer is easy, and documented in our paper. Please read it.
>
> I have read it.
>
> > We do not want to enable BIG TCP for IPv4, this breaks user space badly.
> >
> > I do not want to break tcpdump just because some people think TCP just works.
>
> The changes I suggested don't enable it for IPv4. What your current
> code is doing now is using dev->gso_max_size and if it is the correct
> IPv6 type you are using dev->gso_ipv6_max_size. What I am saying is
> that instead of adding yet another netdev control you should just make
> it so that we retain existing behavior when gso_max_size is less than
> GSO_MAX_SIZE, and when it exceeds it all non-ipv6 types max out at
> GSO_MAX_SIZE and only the ipv6 type packets use gso_max_size when you
> exceed GSO_MAX_SIZE.

gso_max_size can not exceed GSO_MAX_SIZE.
This will break many drivers.
I do not want to change hundreds of them.

Look, we chose this implementation so that chances of breaking things
are very small.
I understand this is frustrating, but I suggest you take the
responsibility of breaking things,
and not add this on us.