From: Guillaume Nault <gnault@redhat.com>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
dccp@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/3] ipv4: First steps toward removing RTO_ONLINK
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:02:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220422110228.GB15621@debian.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2ee8fb0d-aeb4-5010-bc8c-16cbd6e88eff@kernel.org>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 09:10:21PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 4/20/22 5:21 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > RTO_ONLINK is a flag that allows to reduce the scope of route lookups.
> > It's stored in a normally unused bit of the ->flowi4_tos field, in
> > struct flowi4. However it has several problems:
> >
> > * This bit is also used by ECN. Although ECN bits are supposed to be
> > cleared before doing a route lookup, it happened that some code
> > paths didn't properly sanitise their ->flowi4_tos. So this mechanism
> > is fragile and we had bugs in the past where ECN bits slipped in and
> > could end up being erroneously interpreted as RTO_ONLINK.
> >
> > * A dscp_t type was recently introduced to ensure ECN bits are cleared
> > during route lookups. ->flowi4_tos is the most important structure
> > field to convert, but RTO_ONLINK prevents such conversion, as dscp_t
> > mandates that ECN bits (where RTO_ONLINK is stored) be zero.
> >
> > Therefore we need to stop using RTO_ONLINK altogether. Fortunately
> > RTO_ONLINK isn't a necessity. Instead of passing a flag in ->flowi4_tos
> > to tell the route lookup function to restrict the scope, we can simply
> > initialise the scope correctly.
> >
>
> I believe the set looks ok. I think the fib test coverage in selftests
> could use more tests to cover tos.
Yes, this is on my todo list. I also plan to review existing tests that
cover route lookups with link scope, and extend them if necessary.
Thanks for the review.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-22 11:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-20 23:21 [PATCH net-next 0/3] ipv4: First steps toward removing RTO_ONLINK Guillaume Nault
2022-04-20 23:21 ` [PATCH net-next 1/3] ipv4: Don't reset ->flowi4_scope in ip_rt_fix_tos() Guillaume Nault
2022-04-22 2:30 ` David Ahern
2022-04-22 10:53 ` Guillaume Nault
2022-04-22 14:40 ` David Ahern
2022-04-25 10:04 ` Guillaume Nault
2022-04-20 23:21 ` [PATCH net-next 2/3] ipv4: Avoid using RTO_ONLINK with ip_route_connect() Guillaume Nault
2022-04-22 2:32 ` David Ahern
2022-04-20 23:21 ` [PATCH net-next 3/3] ipv4: Initialise ->flowi4_scope properly in ICMP handlers Guillaume Nault
2022-04-22 3:08 ` David Ahern
2022-04-22 3:10 ` [PATCH net-next 0/3] ipv4: First steps toward removing RTO_ONLINK David Ahern
2022-04-22 11:02 ` Guillaume Nault [this message]
2022-04-22 12:50 ` patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=20220422110228.GB15621@debian.home \
--to=gnault@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dccp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).