All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org,  "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	 Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
	kernel-team@cloudflare.com,
	syzbot+e15b7e15b8a751a91d9a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/2] udp: Mark GSO packets as CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY early on on output
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:10:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r0bbzw6f.fsf@cloudflare.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAF=yD-JK+Jnjb5_r3rk+PMwV3cWHTHQHau8CQJ27aSaEQLZxQQ@mail.gmail.com> (Willem de Bruijn's message of "Fri, 26 Jul 2024 09:58:38 -0400")

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 09:58 AM -04, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 7:23 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 10:21 AM -04, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 5:56 AM Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In commit 10154dbded6d ("udp: Allow GSO transmit from devices with no
>> >> checksum offload") we have added a tweak in the UDP GSO code to mark GSO
>> >> packets being sent out as CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY when the egress device
>> >> doesn't support checksum offload. This was done to satisfy the offload
>> >> checks in the gso stack.
>> >>
>> >> However, when sending a UDP GSO packet from a tunnel device, we will go
>> >> through the TX path and the GSO offload twice. Once for the tunnel device,
>> >> which acts as a passthru for GSO packets, and once for the underlying
>> >> egress device.
>> >>
>> >> Even though a tunnel device acts as a passthru for a UDP GSO packet, GSO
>> >> offload checks still happen on transmit from a tunnel device. So if the skb
>> >> is not marked as CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY or CHECKSUM_PARTIAL, we will get a
>> >> warning from the gso stack.
>> >
>> > I don't entirely understand. The check should not hit on pass through,
>> > where segs == skb:
>> >
>> >         if (segs != skb && unlikely(skb_needs_check(skb, tx_path) &&
>> > !IS_ERR(segs)))
>> >                 skb_warn_bad_offload(skb);
>> >
>>
>> That's something I should have explained better. Let me try to shed some
>> light on it now. We're hitting the skb_warn_bad_offload warning because
>> skb_mac_gso_segment doesn't return any segments (segs == NULL).
>>
>> And that's because we bail out early out of __udp_gso_segment when we
>> detect that the tunnel device is capable of tx-udp-segmentation
>> (GSO_UDP_L4):
>>
>>         if (skb_gso_ok(gso_skb, features | NETIF_F_GSO_ROBUST)) {
>>                 /* Packet is from an untrusted source, reset gso_segs. */
>>                 skb_shinfo(gso_skb)->gso_segs = DIV_ROUND_UP(gso_skb->len - sizeof(*uh),
>>                                                              mss);
>>                 return NULL;
>>         }
>
> Oh I see. Thanks.
>
>> It has not occurred to me before, but in the spirit of commit
>> 8d74e9f88d65 "net: avoid skb_warn_bad_offload on IS_ERR" [1], we could
>> tighten the check to exclude cases when segs == NULL. I'm thinking of:
>>
>>         if (segs != skb && !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(segs) && unlikely(skb_needs_check(skb, tx_path)))
>>                 skb_warn_bad_offload(skb);
>
> That looks sensible to me. And nicer than the ip_summed conversion in
> udp_send_skb.

I've audited all existing ->gso_segment callbacks. skb_mac_gso_segment()
returns no segments, that is segs == NULL, if the callback chain ends
with either of these:

… → udp[46]_ufo_fragment → __udp_gso_segment → skb_gso_ok == true
… → tcp[46]_gso_segment → tcp_gso_segment → skb_gso_ok == true
… → sctp_gso_segment → skb_gso_ok == true

IOW when the device advertises that it can handle the desired GSO kind
(skb_gso_ok() returns true).

Considering that a device offering HW GSO and no checksum offload at the
same time makes no sense, I also think that tweaking the bad offload
detection to exclude the !segs case doesn't deprive us of diagnostics.

I will change to that in v2.

  reply	other threads:[~2024-07-29 22:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-25  9:55 [PATCH net 0/2] Fix bad offload warning when sending UDP GSO from a tunnel device Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-25  9:55 ` [PATCH net 1/2] udp: Mark GSO packets as CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY early on on output Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-25 14:21   ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-07-26 11:23     ` Jakub Sitnicki
2024-07-26 13:58       ` Willem de Bruijn
2024-07-29 22:10         ` Jakub Sitnicki [this message]
2024-07-25  9:55 ` [PATCH net 2/2] selftests/net: Add coverage for UDP GSO with egress from tunnel Jakub Sitnicki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87r0bbzw6f.fsf@cloudflare.com \
    --to=jakub@cloudflare.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@cloudflare.com \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=syzbot+e15b7e15b8a751a91d9a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com \
    --cc=willemb@google.com \
    --cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.