public inbox for netdev@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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.




      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