netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ipv6: avoid atomic fragment on GSO 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]

Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 21:57:34 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, 
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, 
	Aya Levin <ayal@...dia.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...dia.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@...udflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next] ipv6: avoid atomic fragment on GSO packets

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 9:42 PM Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 3:02 PM Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
> >
> > Yan Zhai <yan@...udflare.com> wrote:
> > > Refactor __ip6_finish_output code to separate GSO and non-GSO packet
> > > processing. It mirrors __ip_finish_output logic now. Add an extra check
> > > in GSO handling to avoid atomic fragments. Lastly, drop dst_allfrag
> > > check, which is no longer true since commit 9d289715eb5c ("ipv6: stop
> > > sending PTB packets for MTU < 1280").
> >
> >
> > > -     if ((skb->len > mtu && !skb_is_gso(skb)) ||
> > > -         dst_allfrag(skb_dst(skb)) ||
> >
> > My preference is to first remove dst_allfrag, i.e. do this in
> > a separate change.
>
> You mean completely removing all dst_allfrag references and related
> stuff such like IP cork flags/socket flags? I was debating, it might
> be cleaner that way but it does not fit so well with the subject of
> this patch. I can open a new patchset to clean that up separately. For
> this one, I guess I can keep dst_allfrag for now and come back with a
> V3. Does that sound good to you?

The second paragraph in the commit message really makes
clear that this combines three changes in one patch. Of which
the largest one in terms of code churn is supposed to be a
NOOP.

Separating into three patches will make all three more clear.
They can be pushed as one series, conceivably.