From: Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Evan Jones <ej@evanjones.ca>,
Vijay P <vijayp@vijayp.ca>, Cong Wang <cwang@twopensource.com>
Subject: Re: veth regression with "don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good."
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:13:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56F490B2.3090603@candelatech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56F49036.8050902@candelatech.com>
On 03/24/2016 06:11 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
> On 03/24/2016 05:06 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
>> On 03/24/2016 04:56 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com> wrote:
>>>> I have an application that creates two pairs of veth devices.
>>>>
>>>> a <-> b c <-> d
>>>>
>>>> b and c have a raw packet socket opened on them and I 'bridge' frames
>>>> between b and c to provide network emulation (ie, configurable delay).
>>>>
>>>
>>> IIUC, you create two raw sockets in order to bridge these two veth pairs?
>>> That is, to receive packets on one socket and deliver packets on the other?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> I put IP 1.1.1.1/24 on a, 1.1.1.2/24 on d, and then create a UDP connection
>>>> (using policy based routing to ensure frames are sent on the appropriate
>>>> interfaces).
>>>>
>>>> This is user-space only app, and kernel in this case is completely
>>>> unmodified.
>>>>
>>>> The commit below breaks this feature: UDP frames are sniffed on both a and
>>>> d ports
>>>> (in both directions), but the UDP socket does not receive frames.
>>>>
>>>> Using normal ethernet ports, this network emulation feature works fine, so
>>>> it is
>>>> specific to VETH.
>>>>
>>>> A similar test with just sending UDP between a single veth pair: e <-> f
>>>> works fine. Maybe it has something to do with raw packets?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I have the same feeling. Could you trace kfree_skb() to see
>>> where these packets are dropped? At UDP layer?
>>
>> Since reverting the patch fixes this, it almost certainly has to be due to some
>> checksum checking logic. Since UDP sockets (between single veth pair)
>> works, it would appear to be related to my packet bridge, so maybe
>> it is specific to raw packets and/or sendmmsg api.
>>
>> I'll investigate it better tomorrow.
>
> So, I found time to poke at it this evening:
>
> Sending between two veth pairs, no packet bridge involved.
Errrr, to be clear: I mean sending between two ends of a single veth pair here.
>
> UDP: ip_summed is 3 (CHECKSUM_PARTIAL) # Works fine.
> raw packet frames, custom ether protocol (0x1111 type): ip_summed is 0 (NONE) # Works fine.
>
> When I try to send UDP through the veth pairs & pkt bridge, I see this:
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@candelatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-25 1:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-24 22:01 veth regression with "don’t modify ip_summed; doing so treats packets with bad checksums as good." Ben Greear
[not found] ` <CAKUBDd91rR7QTwCO6L6ZfRe4fuHw0L5+Zi7qm0uF018dwVGCLg@mail.gmail.com>
2016-03-24 22:57 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-24 23:56 ` Cong Wang
2016-03-25 0:06 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 1:11 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 1:13 ` Ben Greear [this message]
2016-03-25 1:44 ` Vijay Pandurangan
2016-03-25 4:34 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 4:41 ` Vijay Pandurangan
2016-03-25 4:45 ` Vijay Pandurangan
2016-03-25 5:07 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 5:24 ` Vijay Pandurangan
2016-03-25 14:35 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 21:51 ` Vijay Pandurangan
2016-03-25 5:06 ` Cong Wang
2016-03-25 5:13 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 5:33 ` Cong Wang
2016-03-25 16:10 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 16:32 ` Cong Wang
2016-03-25 16:45 ` David Miller
2016-03-25 16:44 ` David Miller
2016-03-25 17:14 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 19:00 ` David Miller
2016-03-25 20:56 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 21:59 ` Vijay Pandurangan
2016-03-25 22:23 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 23:03 ` Vijay Pandurangan
2016-03-25 23:46 ` Ben Greear
2016-04-07 15:11 ` Vijay Pandurangan
2016-04-07 18:32 ` Ben Greear
2016-03-25 22:23 ` Cong Wang
2016-03-25 22:16 ` Cong Wang
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=56F490B2.3090603@candelatech.com \
--to=greearb@candelatech.com \
--cc=cwang@twopensource.com \
--cc=ej@evanjones.ca \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vijayp@vijayp.ca \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/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).