Re: [PATCH] Multicast packet reassembly can fail

[Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com>]

>> It has been hours since my last good Emily Litella moment so I'll ask 
>> - isn't the combination of source and dest addr, protocol, IP ID and 
>> fragment offset supposed to take care of this?  How does the ingress 
>> interface have anything to do with it?
>>
>> rick jones
> 
> The problem we've seen arises only when there are multiple interfaces 
> each receiving the same multicast packets.  In that case there are 
> multiple packets with the same key.  Steve was able to track down a 
> packet loss due to re-assembly failure under certain arrival order 
> conditions.
> 
> The proposed fix eliminated the packet loss in this case.  There might 
> be a different problem in the re-assembly code that we have masked by 
> separating the packets into streams from each interface.  Now that you 
> mention it, the re-assembly code should be robust in the face of some 
> duplicated and mis-ordered packets.  We can look more closely at that code.

If I understand correctly, the idea here is to say that when multiple interfaces 
receive fragments of copies of the same  IP datagram that both copies will 
"survive" and flow up the stack?

I'm basing that on your description, and an email from Steve that reads:

> Actually, the patch tries to prevent packet drop for this exact
> scenario.  Please consider the following scenarios
> 1.  Packet comes in the fragment reassemble code in the following order
> (eth0 frag1), (eth0 frag2), (eth1 frag1), (eth1 frag2)
> Packet from both interfaces get reassembled and gets further processed.
> 
> 2. Packet can some times arrive in (perhaps other orders as well)
> (eth0 frag1), (eth1 frag1), (eth0 frag2), (eth1 frag2)
> Without this patch, eth0 frag 1/2 are overwritten by eth1 frag1/2, and
> packet from eth1 is dropped in the routing code.

Doesn't that rather fly in the face of the weak-end-system model followed by Linux?

I can see where scenario one leads to two IP datagrams making it up the stack, 
but I would have thought that was simply an "accident" of the situation that 
cannot reasonably be prevented, not justification to cause scenario two to send 
two datagrams up the stack.

rick jones