From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@genband.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [BUG] behaviour mismatch between ipv4 and ipv6 in UDP rx path
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 21:59:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1297889942.2645.22.camel@edumazet-laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D5C3128.4080101@genband.com>
Le mercredi 16 février 2011 à 14:18 -0600, Chris Friesen a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I sent this out a week ago but didn't see a reply, so I'm sending it out
> again.
>
> One of our guys is seeing occasional dropped ipv4 packets coming in on
> an ipv6 udp socket obtained via socket(AF_INET6, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP).
>
> Here's what he says:
>
>
> "The problem happens when release_sock() goes down an interesting code
> path. If (sk->sk_backlog.tail) is non-NULL then release_sock() invokes
> __release_sock() which loops over all queue packets and invokes the
> socket's backlog receive function for each previously queued packet.
>
> Now for the interesting part. The UDPv6 backlog receive function (in
> net/ipv6/udp.c, udpv6_queue_rcv_skb()) invokes xfrm6_policy_check() to
> confirm that the packet is allowed, but the problem is that it calls
> this function regardless of whether the packet is IPv4 or IPv6. The
> xfrm6_policy_check() function then assumes that it is an IPv6 packet and
> tries to match a policy based on its packet header... but that clearly
> won't work because the addresses that it finds when it decodes the skb
> are completely bogus."
>
>
> Looking at the ipv4 code, git commit 9382177 split __udp_queue_rcv_skb()
> out of udp_queue_rcv_skb(). It was done for locking purposes, but it
> also means that backlog_rcv is bound to __udp_queue_rcv_skb(), which
> doesn't call xfrm4_policy_check().
>
>
> Should a new function __udpv6_queue_rcv_skb() be split out from
> udpv6_queue_rcv_skb() and bound to backlog_rcv to resolve the xfrm
> issue? What about the locking that was the reason for the split in the
> ipv4 case--is there a similar problem with ipv6?
>
Yes, please submit a patch ?
Ideally, __udp_queue_rcv_skb() should be the common .backlog
In practice, because of sock_rps_save_rxhash() and MIB counters, I
suspect a __udp6_queue_rcv_skb() is OK.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-16 20:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-16 20:18 [BUG] behaviour mismatch between ipv4 and ipv6 in UDP rx path Chris Friesen
2011-02-16 20:59 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
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=1297889942.2645.22.camel@edumazet-laptop \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=chris.friesen@genband.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox