From: Tom Parkin <tparkin@katalix.com>
To: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, jchapman@katalix.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] l2tp: avoid checksum offload for fragmented packets
Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 18:15:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130529171531.GB3179@raven> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130527185829.GO1942@kvack.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3193 bytes --]
Thanks, Ben.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 02:58:29PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > This change modifies the L2TP xmit path to fallback to software checksum
> > calculation if the L2TP packet + IP header exceeds the tunnel device MTU.
> > Since we don't know what the IP header length will be a priori, we assume the
> > worst-case of 60b. This will likely result in unnecessary software
> > checksumming when packet sizes approach the MTU since it's probably not common
> > to be using the full IP header.
>
> Using the worst case value of 60 is a poor choice for many users of L2TP --
> plenty of the wholesale ISP services in the world using PPPoE transport
> sessions to ISPs using frame with headers of ethernet(14) + IP(20) + UDP(8) +
> L2TP(6) = 48 (this setup is used by a number of large telcos here in Canada).
> This will results in spurious use of software checksumming over links that
> are provisioned with the minimum usable MTU (which is common with this kind
> of link). Please make the code calculate the correct size of the added
> headers to avoid uexpected CPU overhead.
Yes, I agree. I wasn't sure whether direct calculation of the IP
header length would be acceptable, or whether there was another
mechanism available that I should be making use of.
I'll respin this patch with direct calculations rather than the worse-case
guess.
> > An alternative approach is to mimic UDP and use socket corking to allow us to
> > pass the skb to the IP layer prior to finally pushing the button on xmit.
> > This lets IP do his fragmentation before we authorise the packet send,
> > allowing us to check whether the packet was actually fragmented by IP or not.
>
> That is probably undesirable from a CPU usage point of view. Ideally, the
> kernel's L2TP stack should generate ICMP frag needed messages for such
> frames to avoid the fragmentation overhead (ipip is one such tunnelling
> protocol that does this; there are others).
I agree. That sounds like a better overall approach. Perhaps we
could look at fixing up the immediate issue with a patch similar to
this (with your review comments resolved), and then add support for
ICMP frag needed messages as a further piece of work?
> > @@ -1197,30 +1224,14 @@ int l2tp_xmit_skb(struct l2tp_session *session, struct sk_buff *skb, int hdr_len
> > uh->check = 0;
> >
> > /* Calculate UDP checksum if configured to do so */
> > + if (sk->sk_no_check == UDP_CSUM_NOXMIT)
> > + skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_NONE;
> > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
> > - if (sk->sk_family == PF_INET6)
> > + else if (sk->sk_family == PF_INET6)
> > l2tp_xmit_ipv6_csum(sk, skb, udp_len);
> > - else
> ...
>
> The last time I checked, for IPv6 UDP packets, the checksum MUST always be
> calculated (RFC 2460). If this has changed, you'll also need to update the
> IPv6 UDP receive path to allow rx packets with a zero checksum, as I believe
> they are noisily dropped at present.
Good catch, I'll fix that by reverting this chunk.
--
Tom Parkin
Katalix Systems Ltd
http://www.katalix.com
Catalysts for your Embedded Linux software development
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-29 17:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-05-16 17:04 [RFC] l2tp: avoid checksum offload for fragmented packets Tom Parkin
2013-05-16 17:04 ` Tom Parkin
2013-05-27 18:58 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2013-05-29 17:15 ` Tom Parkin [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=20130529171531.GB3179@raven \
--to=tparkin@katalix.com \
--cc=bcrl@kvack.org \
--cc=jchapman@katalix.com \
--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