Re: [PATCH net 2/2] ip6_gre: Fix skb_under_panic in __gre6_xmit()

[Peilin Ye <yepeilin.cs@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2022 at 09:33:20AM +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 23:56:33 -0700 Peilin Ye wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 07:11:33PM +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > > > Could you explain this a bit more?  It seems that commit 77a5196a804e
> > > > ("gre: add sequence number for collect md mode.") added this
> > > > intentionally.  
> > > 
> > > Interesting. Maybe a better way of dealing with the problem would be
> > > rejecting SEQ if it's not set on the device itself.  
> > 
> > According to ip-link(8), the 'external' option is mutually exclusive
> > with the '[o]seq' option.  In other words, a collect_md mode IP6GRETAP
> > device should always have the TUNNEL_SEQ flag off in its
> > 'tunnel->parms.o_flags'.
> > 
> > (However, I just tried:
> > 
> >   $ ip link add dev ip6gretap11 type ip6gretap oseq external
> > 					       ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
> >  ...and my 'ip' executed it with no error.  I will take a closer look at
> >  iproute2 later; maybe it's undefined behavior...)
> > 
> > How about:
> > 
> > 1. If 'external', then 'oseq' means "always turn off NETIF_F_LLTX, so
> > it's okay to set TUNNEL_SEQ in e.g. eBPF";
> > 
> > 2. Otherwise, if 'external' but NOT 'oseq', then whenever we see a
> > TUNNEL_SEQ in skb's tunnel info, we do something like WARN_ONCE() then
> > return -EINVAL.
> 
> Maybe pr_warn_once(), no need for a stacktrace.

Ah, thanks, coffee needed...

> > > When the device is set up without the SEQ bit enabled it disables Tx
> > > locking (look for LLTX). This means that multiple CPUs can try to do
> > > the tunnel->o_seqno++ in parallel. Not catastrophic but racy for sure.  
> > 
> > Thanks for the explanation!  At first glance, I was wondering why don't
> > we make 'o_seqno' atomic until I found commit b790e01aee74 ("ip_gre:
> > lockless xmit").  I quote:
> > 
> > """
> > Even using an atomic_t o_seq, we would increase chance for packets being
> > out of order at receiver.
> > """
> > 
> > I don't fully understand this out-of-order yet, but it seems that making
> > 'o_seqno' atomic is not an option?
> 
> atomic_t would also work (if it has enough bits). Whatever is simplest
> TBH. It's just about correctness, I don't think seq is widely used.

I see, I will work on this, thanks!

Peilin Ye