From: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
To: John Hughes <john@atlantech.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: When a TCP segment is split up (to be sent through a TUN device with a small MTU) who should recalculate the checksum?
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:20:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52862DBF.2060801@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5285E0BC.4090402@atlantech.com>
On 11/15/2013 03:52 AM, John Hughes wrote:
> I have two offices, joined by a OpenVPN tunnel. I've upgraded the
> kernels in the machines running the tunnel to 3.10. All of a sudden I'm
> getting horrible transmission delays between the two offices.
>
> office1 LAN--------office1 tunnel machine
> |
> | openvpn tunnel
> |
> office2 tunnel machine------office2 LAN
>
> What seems to be happening is that packets are arriving at the LAN
> interface of the machine running the tunnel and being combined by
> generic-receive-offload. These packets then have to be split up again
> as they are too big for the tunnels MTU.
>
> But when the packets are split the TCP checksum doesn't seem to be being
> recalculated, so the systems on the other end of the tunnel ignore them,
> forcing many retries and the observed delays.
>
> For example, here is a large packet coming in on the NIC of the machine
> running the tunnel, followed by a smaller packet ("caronia" is on the
> office 1 LAN, "olympic" is on the office 2 LAN):
>
> 11:59:23.020426 IP caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 >
> olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.], seq 3073:9843, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 6770
> 11:59:23.041072 IP caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 >
> olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.], seq 9843:11197, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919297 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
>
>
> Then the packet gets sent out on the tunnel as 5 smaller packets:
>
> 11:59:23.020449 IP caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 >
> olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.], seq 3073:4427, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
> 11:59:23.020534 IP caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 >
> olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.], seq 4427:5781, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
> 11:59:23.020536 IP caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 >
> olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.], seq 5781:7135, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
> 11:59:23.020539 IP caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 >
> olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.], seq 7135:8489, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
> 11:59:23.020543 IP caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 >
> olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.], seq 8489:9843, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
> 11:59:23.041086 IP caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 >
> olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.], seq 9843:11197, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919297 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
>
>
>
> And this is what the receiving system sees:
>
> 11:59:23.025658 IP (tos 0x8, ttl 62, id 42831, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 1406)
> caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 > olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.],
> cksum 0x1003 (incorrect -> 0xb1b9), seq 3073:4427, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
> 11:59:23.025907 IP (tos 0x8, ttl 62, id 42832, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 1406)
> caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 > olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.],
> cksum 0x1003 (incorrect -> 0x871c), seq 4427:5781, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
> 11:59:23.025990 IP (tos 0x8, ttl 62, id 42833, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 1406)
> caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 > olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.],
> cksum 0x1003 (incorrect -> 0x97dd), seq 5781:7135, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
> 11:59:23.026183 IP (tos 0x8, ttl 62, id 42834, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 1406)
> caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 > olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.],
> cksum 0x1003 (incorrect -> 0x9961), seq 7135:8489, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
> 11:59:23.026231 IP (tos 0x8, ttl 62, id 42835, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 1406)
> caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 > olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.],
> cksum 0x1003 (incorrect -> 0x6a2a), seq 8489:9843, ack 2233, win 148,
> options [nop,nop,TS val 215919291 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
> 11:59:23.046163 IP (tos 0x8, ttl 62, id 42836, offset 0, flags [DF],
> proto TCP (6), length 1406)
> caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232 > olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh: Flags [.],
> cksum 0xd237 (correct), seq 9843:11197, ack 2233, win 148, options
> [nop,nop,TS val 215919297 ecr 1199882508], length 1354
>
>
> The receiving system is, of course, unhappy about that and complains
> that it hasn't got 3073:9843
>
> 11:59:23.045040 IP olympic.calvaedi.com.ssh >
> caronia.CalvaEDI.COM.33232: Flags [.], ack 3073, win 1933, options
> [nop,nop,TS val 1199882514 ecr 215919290,nop,nop,sack 1 {9843:11197}],
> length 0
>
>
> So, when the 6770 byte segment is split up into five 1354 byte segments
> who is supposed to recalculate the checksums?
>
> (This is Debian bug 729567).
>
>
Can you check to see if you have the following patch in your kernel
commit: 1cdbcb7957cf9e5f841dbcde9b38fd18a804208b
Author: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Date: Sun May 19 15:46:49 2013 +0000
net: Loosen constraints for recalculating checksum in skb_segment()
This commit help if the forwarding system has to re-segment the data
before transition. Especially if the receiving interface had GRO
enabled with checksum offloading and the transmitting interface does
not support checksum offloading.
-vlad
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-15 14:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-15 8:52 When a TCP segment is split up (to be sent through a TUN device with a small MTU) who should recalculate the checksum? John Hughes
2013-11-15 13:06 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-11-15 14:02 ` John Hughes
2013-11-15 14:20 ` Vlad Yasevich [this message]
2013-11-15 14:31 ` John Hughes
2013-11-15 14:41 ` Vlad Yasevich
2013-11-15 14:55 ` John Hughes
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=52862DBF.2060801@gmail.com \
--to=vyasevich@gmail.com \
--cc=john@atlantech.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).