Re: Sending undersized ARP packets with VXLAN L3 interface

[Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>]

On 08/27/2014 04:01 PM, Martin Rusko wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 08/27/2014 02:42 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:52:03 -0400
>>> Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/27/2014 01:28 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Martin Rusko <martin.rusko@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm wondering, where is the proper place to fix this. Should
>>>>>> arp_create() function allocate skb big enough to produce ethernet
>>>>>> frame with at least minimum size? Or is it somewhere in NIC drivers
>>>>>> where small packets are padded with zeros?
>>>>>
>>>>> Drivers do that, for example e1000:
>>>>>
>>>>>         /* On PCI/PCI-X HW, if packet size is less than ETH_ZLEN,
>>>>>          * packets may get corrupted during padding by HW.
>>>>>          * To WA this issue, pad all small packets manually.
>>>>>          */
>>>>>         if (skb->len < ETH_ZLEN) {
>>>>>                 if (skb_pad(skb, ETH_ZLEN - skb->len))
>>>>>                         return NETDEV_TX_OK;
>>>>>                 skb->len = ETH_ZLEN;
>>>>>                 skb_set_tail_pointer(skb, ETH_ZLEN);
>>>>>         }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think vxlan needs something like this:
>>>>
>>>> From: Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 13:39:32 -0400
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] vxlan: Pad short ethernet frames.
>>>>
>>>> If sending short ethernet frames from the vxlan device, pad
>>>> them to minimum size so they can be forwarded after decapsulation.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Martin Rusko <martin.rusko@gmail.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Vladislav Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/vxlan.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/vxlan.c b/drivers/net/vxlan.c
>>>> index 1fb7b37..48267d4 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/vxlan.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/vxlan.c
>>>> @@ -1939,6 +1939,14 @@ static netdev_tx_t vxlan_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
>>>> net_device *dev)
>>>>  #endif
>>>>      }
>>>>
>>>> +    /* Pad short frames so they can be forwarded after decapsulation */
>>>> +    if (skb->len < ETH_ZLEN) {
>>>> +            if (skb_pad(skb, ETH_ZLEN - skb->len))
>>>> +                    return NETDEV_TX_OK;
>>>> +            skb->len = ETH_ZLEN;
>>>> +            skb_set_tail_pointer(skb, ETH_ZLEN);
>>>> +    }
>>>> +
>>>>      f = vxlan_find_mac(vxlan, eth->h_dest);
>>>>      did_rsc = false;
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. The short frame is perfectly valid, over the VXLAN.
>>> The system doing the decap and forwarding should be where any padding is added if necessary.
>>>
> 
> Well, RFC 7348 is not dealing with padding at all. Both deployment
> scenarios listed in RFC, as well as most of the existing real life
> deployments today (in my opinion) use VXLAN for bridged traffic. In
> other words, frame encapsulated by VTEP is received first over some
> ethernet interface (physical or virtual) which implies that the frame
> is at least 64 bytes long already.
> 
> Perhaps we're going to see more VXLAN interfaces in L3 mode, yet it
> might be safer not to count on receiving VTEP doing the right thing
> (pad small packets with zeros).
> 
>>
>> If that's the case, then Martin is most likely seeing a HW bug on the switch.
>> I wonder how common such a bug might be?
>>
>> -vlad
>>
> 
> I see this on Vmware distributed virtual switch. Perhaps soon I will
> be able to test it against HP 5930 switch. I'm going to try how Linux
> bridge copes with it, now.

Linux bridge will do just fine as it will pass the frame off to the hw driver
which should pad things appropriately.

-vlad

> 
> Many thanks for the patch anyway!
> 
> Regards,
> Martin
>