From: Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@huawei.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: <davem@davemloft.net>, <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
<jmorris@namei.org>, <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>, <kaber@trash.net>,
<aduyck@mirantis.com>, <hkchu@google.com>,
<netdev@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IP ID check (flush_id) in inet_gro_receive is necessary or not?
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:44:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57722AC0.7090003@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1467089829.6850.181.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
On 2016/6/28 12:57, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 12:40 +0800, Tan Xiaojun wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I'm sorry to bother you. But I was confused.
>>
>> The IP ID check (flush_id) in inet_gro_receive is only used by
>> tcp_gro_receive, and in tcp_gro_receive we have tcphdr check to ensure
>> the order of skbs,
>> like below:
>>
>> flush |= (__force int)(th->ack_seq ^ th2->ack_seq);
>> flush |= (ntohl(th2->seq) + skb_gro_len(p)) ^ ntohl(th->seq);
>>
>> So if I remove the IP ID check in inet_gro_receive, there will be a
>> problem ? And under what circumstances ?
>
> You probably missed a recent patch ?
>
Thank you very much.
Is this patch means forcing the IP ID to be incrementing by 1 is necessary in the
case of using tunnel (if the IP_DF is not set in frag_off).
I have not used the tunneled frames. Do you have some examples for that ?
Xiaojun.
> commit 1530545ed64b42e87acb43c0c16401bd1ebae6bf
> Author: Alexander Duyck <aduyck@mirantis.com>
> Date: Sun Apr 10 21:44:57 2016 -0400
>
> GRO: Add support for TCP with fixed IPv4 ID field, limit tunnel IP ID values
>
> This patch does two things.
>
> First it allows TCP to aggregate TCP frames with a fixed IPv4 ID field. As
> a result we should now be able to aggregate flows that were converted from
> IPv6 to IPv4. In addition this allows us more flexibility for future
> implementations of segmentation as we may be able to use a fixed IP ID when
> segmenting the flow.
>
> The second thing this does is that it places limitations on the outer IPv4
> ID header in the case of tunneled frames. Specifically it forces the IP ID
> to be incrementing by 1 unless the DF bit is set in the outer IPv4 header.
> This way we can avoid creating overlapping series of IP IDs that could
> possibly be fragmented if the frame goes through GRO and is then
> resegmented via GSO.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <aduyck@mirantis.com>
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
>
>
>
> .
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-28 7:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-28 4:40 IP ID check (flush_id) in inet_gro_receive is necessary or not? Tan Xiaojun
2016-06-28 4:57 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-06-28 7:44 ` Tan Xiaojun [this message]
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=57722AC0.7090003@huawei.com \
--to=tanxiaojun@huawei.com \
--cc=aduyck@mirantis.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=hkchu@google.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kaber@trash.net \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--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).