Re: [PATCH net 1/2] net/af_packet: adjust network header position for VLAN tagged packets

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Maxim Mikityanskiy <maximmi@mellanox.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Balazs Nemeth <bnemeth@redhat.com>,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Flavio Leitner <fbl@redhat.com>,
	Mike Pattrick <mpattric@redhat.com>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] net/af_packet: adjust network header position for VLAN tagged packets
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:26:09 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220419101325-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+FuTSfBU7ck91ayf_t9=7eRGJZHuWSeXzX2SxFAQMPSitY9SA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 09:56:02AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > >
> > > We should also maintain feature consistency between packet_snd,
> > > tpacket_snd and to the limitations of its feature set to
> > > packet_sendmsg_spkt. The no_fcs is already lacking in tpacket_snd as
> > > far as I can tell. But packet_sendmsg_spkt also sets it and calls
> > > packet_parse_headers.
> >
> > Yes, I think we could fix the tpacket_snd() in another patch.
> >
> > There are also some duplicated codes in these *_snd functions.
> > I think we can move them out to one single function.
> 
> Please don't refactor this code. It will complicate future backports
> of stable fixes.

Hmm I don't know offhand which duplication this refers to specifically
so maybe it's not worth addressing specifically but generally not
cleaning up code just because of backports seems wrong ...

> > > Because this patch touches many other packets besides the ones
> > > intended, I am a bit concerned about unintended consequences. Perhaps
> >
> > Yes, makes sense.
> >
> > > stretching the definition of the flags to include VLAN is acceptable
> > > (unlike outright tunnels), but even then I would suggest for net-next.
> >
> > As I asked, I'm not familiar with virtio code. Do you think if I should
> > add a new VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_VLAN flag? It's only a L2 flag without any L3
> > info. If I add something like VIRTIO_NET_HDR_GSO_VLAN_TCPV4/TCPV6/UDP. That
> > would add more combinations. Which doesn't like a good idea.
> 
> I would prefer a new flag to denote this type, so that we can be
> strict and only change the datapath for packets that have this flag
> set (and thus express the intent).
> 
> But the VIRTIO_NET_HDR types are defined in the virtio spec. The
> maintainers should probably chime in.

Yes, it's a UAPI extension, not to be done lightly. In this case IIUC
gso_type in the header is only u8 - 8 bits and 5 of these are already
used.  So I don't think the virtio TC will be all that happy to burn up
a bit unless a clear benefit can be demonstrated. 

I agree with the net-next proposal, I think it's more a feature than a
bugfix. In particular I think a Fixes tag can also be dropped in that
IIUC GSO for vlan packets didn't work even before that commit - right?

-- 
MST

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization