Re: [PATCH net] gso: do GSO for local skb with size bigger than MTU

[Fan Du <fengyuleidian0615@gmail.com>]

于 2015年01月09日 03:55, Jesse Gross 写道:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Fan Du<fengyuleidian0615@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> >于 2015年01月08日 04:52, Jesse Gross 写道:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>My understanding is:
>>>>> >>> >controller sets the forwarding rules into kernel datapath, any flow not
>>>>> >>> >matching
>>>>> >>> >with the rules are threw to controller by upcall. Once the rule decision
>>>>> >>> >is
>>>>> >>> >made
>>>>> >>> >by controller, then, this flow packet is pushed down to datapath to be
>>>>> >>> >forwarded
>>>>> >>> >again according to the new rule.
>>>>> >>> >
>>>>> >>> >So I'm not sure whether pushing the over-MTU-sized packet or pushing the
>>>>> >>> >forged ICMP
>>>>> >>> >without encapsulation to controller is required by current ovs
>>>>> >>> >implementation. By doing
>>>>> >>> >so, such over-MTU-sized packet is treated as a event for the controller
>>>>> >>> >to
>>>>> >>> >be take
>>>>> >>> >care of.
>>> >>
>>> >>If flows are implementing routing (again, they are doing things like
>>> >>decrementing the TTL) then it is necessary for them to also handle
>>> >>this situation using some potentially new primitives (like a size
>>> >>check). Otherwise you end up with issues like the ones that I
>>> >>mentioned above like needing to forge addresses because you don't know
>>> >>what the correct ones are.
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanks for explaining, Jesse!
>> >
>> >btw, I don't get it about "to forge addresses", building ICMP message
>> >with Guest packet doesn't require to forge address when not encapsulating
>> >ICMP message with outer headers.
> Your patch has things like this (for the inner IP header):
>
> +                               new_ip->saddr = orig_ip->daddr;
> +                               new_ip->daddr = orig_ip->saddr;
>
> These addresses are owned by the endpoints, not the host generating
> generating the ICMP message, so I would consider that to be forging
> addresses.
>
>> >If the flows aren't doing things to
>>> >>
>>> >>implement routing, then you really have a flat L2 network and you
>>> >>shouldn't be doing this type of behavior at all as I described in the
>>> >>original plan.
>> >
>> >
>> >For flows implementing routing scenario:
>> >First of all, over-MTU-sized packet could only be detected once the flow
>> >as been consulted(each port could implement a 'check' hook to do this),
>> >and just before send to the actual port.
>> >
>> >Then pushing the over-MTU-sized packet back to controller, it's the
>> >controller
>> >who will will decide whether to build ICMP message, or whatever routing
>> >behaviour
>> >it may take. And sent it back with the port information. This ICMP message
>> >will
>> >travel back to Guest.
>> >
>> >Why does the flow has to use primitive like a "check size"? "check size"
>> >will only take effect after do_output. I'm not very clear with this
>> >approach.
> Checking the size obviously needs to be an action that would take
> place before outputting in order for it to have any effect. Attaching
> a check to a port does not fit in very well with the other primitives
> of OVS, so I think an action is the obvious place to put it.
>
>> >And not all scenario involving flow with routing behaviour, just set up a
>> >vxlan tunnel, and attach KVM guest or Docker onto it for playing or
>> >developing.
>> >This wouldn't necessarily require user to set additional specific flows to
>> >make
>> >over-MTU-sized packet pass through the tunnel correctly. In such scenario, I
>> >think the original patch in this thread to fragment tunnel packet is still
>> >needed
>> >OR workout a generic component to build ICMP for all type tunnel in L2
>> >level.
>> >Both of those will act as a backup plan as there is no such specific flow as
>> >default.
> In these cases, we should find a way to adjust the MTU, preferably
> automatically using virtio.

I'm gonna to argue this a bit more here.

virtio_net pose no limit at its simulated net device, actually it can fall into
anywhere between 68 and 65535. Most importantly, virtio_net just simulates NIC,
it just can’t assume/presume there is an encapsulating port at its downstream.
How should virtio automatically adjust its upper guest MTU?



-- 
No zuo no die but I have to try.