Re: BUG_ON triggered in skb_segment

[Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>]

On 03/13/2018 05:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/13/2018 05:04 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> On 3/13/18 4:27 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/13/2018 04:09 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>>
>>>> we have bpf_skb_proto_6_to_4() that was used by cilium for long time.
>>>> It's not clear why it's not crashing there, but we cannot just
>>>> reject changing proto in bpf programs now.
>>>> We have to fix whatever needs to be fixed in skb_segment
>>>> (if bug is there) or fix whatever necessary on mlx5 side.
>>>> In bpf helper we mark it as SKB_GSO_DODGY just like packets coming
>>>> through virtio would do, so if skb_segment() needs to do something
>>>> special with skb the SKB_GSO_DODGY flag is already there.
>>>
>>> 'Fixing' skb_segment(), I did that a long time ago and Herbert Xu was
>>> not happy with the fix and provided something else.
>>
>> any link to your old patches and discussion?
>>
>> I think since mlx4 can do tso on them and the packets came out
>> correct on the wire, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with
>> changing gso_size. Just tricky to teach skb_segment.
>>
> 
> The world is not mlx4 only. Some NIC will ask skb_segment() fallback 
> segmentation for various reasons (like skb->len above a given limit like 
> 16KB)
> 
> Maybe https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg255549.html


Herbert patch :

commit 9d8506cc2d7ea1f911c72c100193a3677f6668c3
Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:   Thu Nov 21 11:10:04 2013 -0800

     gso: handle new frag_list of frags GRO packets