From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
edumazet@google.com, pabeni@redhat.com, dsahern@kernel.org,
horms@kernel.org, kuniyu@amazon.com,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] ipv4: prefer multipath nexthop that matches source address
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 20:30:47 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aA5px6qCjTWbHimM@shredder> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <680cf54b983d5_193a06294ab@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 11:01:31AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Ido Schimmel wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:35:18AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
> > >
> > > With multipath routes, try to ensure that packets leave on the device
> > > that is associated with the source address.
> > >
> > > Avoid the following tcpdump example:
> > >
> > > veth0 Out IP 10.1.0.2.38640 > 10.2.0.3.8000: Flags [S]
> > > veth1 Out IP 10.1.0.2.38648 > 10.2.0.3.8000: Flags [S]
> > >
> > > Which can happen easily with the most straightforward setup:
> > >
> > > ip addr add 10.0.0.1/24 dev veth0
> > > ip addr add 10.1.0.1/24 dev veth1
> > >
> > > ip route add 10.2.0.3 nexthop via 10.0.0.2 dev veth0 \
> > > nexthop via 10.1.0.2 dev veth1
> > >
> > > This is apparently considered WAI, based on the comment in
> > > ip_route_output_key_hash_rcu:
> > >
> > > * 2. Moreover, we are allowed to send packets with saddr
> > > * of another iface. --ANK
> > >
> > > It may be ok for some uses of multipath, but not all. For instance,
> > > when using two ISPs, a router may drop packets with unknown source.
> > >
> > > The behavior occurs because tcp_v4_connect makes three route
> > > lookups when establishing a connection:
> > >
> > > 1. ip_route_connect calls to select a source address, with saddr zero.
> > > 2. ip_route_connect calls again now that saddr and daddr are known.
> > > 3. ip_route_newports calls again after a source port is also chosen.
> > >
> > > With a route with multiple nexthops, each lookup may make a different
> > > choice depending on available entropy to fib_select_multipath. So it
> > > is possible for 1 to select the saddr from the first entry, but 3 to
> > > select the second entry. Leading to the above situation.
> > >
> > > Address this by preferring a match that matches the flowi4 saddr. This
> > > will make 2 and 3 make the same choice as 1. Continue to update the
> > > backup choice until a choice that matches saddr is found.
> > >
> > > Do this in fib_select_multipath itself, rather than passing an fl4_oif
> > > constraint, to avoid changing non-multipath route selection. Commit
> > > e6b45241c57a ("ipv4: reset flowi parameters on route connect") shows
> > > how that may cause regressions.
> > >
> > > Also read ipv4.sysctl_fib_multipath_use_neigh only once. No need to
> > > refresh in the loop.
> > >
> > > This does not happen in IPv6, which performs only one lookup.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
> >
> > One note below
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > -void fib_select_multipath(struct fib_result *res, int hash)
> > > +void fib_select_multipath(struct fib_result *res, int hash,
> > > + const struct flowi4 *fl4)
> > > {
> > > struct fib_info *fi = res->fi;
> > > struct net *net = fi->fib_net;
> > > - bool first = false;
> > > + bool found = false;
> > > + bool use_neigh;
> > > + __be32 saddr;
> > >
> > > if (unlikely(res->fi->nh)) {
> > > nexthop_path_fib_result(res, hash);
> > > return;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + use_neigh = READ_ONCE(net->ipv4.sysctl_fib_multipath_use_neigh);
> > > + saddr = fl4 ? fl4->saddr : 0;
> > > +
> > > change_nexthops(fi) {
> > > - if (READ_ONCE(net->ipv4.sysctl_fib_multipath_use_neigh)) {
> > > - if (!fib_good_nh(nexthop_nh))
> > > - continue;
> > > - if (!first) {
> > > - res->nh_sel = nhsel;
> > > - res->nhc = &nexthop_nh->nh_common;
> > > - first = true;
> > > - }
> > > + if (use_neigh && !fib_good_nh(nexthop_nh))
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + if (!found) {
> > > + res->nh_sel = nhsel;
> > > + res->nhc = &nexthop_nh->nh_common;
> > > + found = !saddr || nexthop_nh->nh_saddr == saddr;
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (hash > atomic_read(&nexthop_nh->fib_nh_upper_bound))
> > > continue;
> >
> > Note that because 'res' is set before comparing the hash with the hash
> > threshold, it's possible to choose a nexthop that does not have a
> > carrier (they are assigned a hash threshold of -1), whereas this did
> > not happen before. Tested with [1].
>
> This is different from the previous pre-threshold choice if !first,
> because that choice was always tested with fib_good_nh(), while now
> that is optional?
I'm not sure I understood the question, but my point is that we can make
the code a bit clearer and more "correct" with something like this [1]
as a follow-up. It honors the "ignore_routes_with_linkdown" sysctl and
skips over nexthops that do not have a carrier.
I tested with [2] which fails without the patch. fib_tests.sh is also OK
[3] (including the new tests).
In practice, the patch shouldn't make a big difference. For the case of
saddr==0 (e.g., forwarding), it shouldn't make any difference because
you are guaranteed to find a nexthop whose upper bound covers the
calculated hash.
For the case of saddr!=0 (e.g., locally generated traffic) this patch
will not choose a nexthop if it has the correct address but no carrier.
Like I said before, it probably doesn't matter in practice because the
route lookup for the source address wouldn't choose this nexthop /
address in the first place.
[1]
diff --git a/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c b/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
index 2371f311a1e1..ce56fe39b185 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/fib_semantics.c
@@ -2188,7 +2188,14 @@ void fib_select_multipath(struct fib_result *res, int hash,
saddr = fl4 ? fl4->saddr : 0;
change_nexthops(fi) {
- if (use_neigh && !fib_good_nh(nexthop_nh))
+ int nh_upper_bound;
+
+ /* Nexthops without a carrier are assigned an upper bound of
+ * minus one when "ignore_routes_with_linkdown" is set.
+ */
+ nh_upper_bound = atomic_read(&nexthop_nh->fib_nh_upper_bound);
+ if (nh_upper_bound == -1 ||
+ (use_neigh && !fib_good_nh(nexthop_nh)))
continue;
if (!found) {
@@ -2197,7 +2204,7 @@ void fib_select_multipath(struct fib_result *res, int hash,
found = !saddr || nexthop_nh->nh_saddr == saddr;
}
- if (hash > atomic_read(&nexthop_nh->fib_nh_upper_bound))
+ if (hash > nh_upper_bound)
continue;
if (!saddr || nexthop_nh->nh_saddr == saddr) {
[2]
#!/bin/bash
trap cleanup EXIT
cleanup() {
ip netns del ns1
}
ip netns add ns1
ip -n ns1 link set dev lo up
ip -n ns1 link add name dummy1 up type dummy
ip -n ns1 link add name dummy2 up type dummy
ip -n ns1 address add 192.0.2.1/28 dev dummy1
ip -n ns1 address add 192.0.2.17/28 dev dummy2
ip -n ns1 route add 198.51.100.0/24 \
nexthop via 192.0.2.2 dev dummy1 \
nexthop via 192.0.2.18 dev dummy2
ip netns exec ns1 sysctl -wq net.ipv4.fib_multipath_hash_policy=1
ip netns exec ns1 sysctl -wq net.ipv4.conf.all.ignore_routes_with_linkdown=1
ip -n ns1 link set dev dummy2 carrier off
for i in {1..128}; do
ip -n ns1 route get to 198.51.100.1 from 192.0.2.17 \
ipproto tcp sport $i dport $i | grep -q dummy2
[[ $? -eq 0 ]] && echo "FAIL" && exit
done
echo "SUCCESS"
[3]
# ./fib_tests.sh
[...]
Tests passed: 230
Tests failed: 0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-27 17:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-24 14:35 [PATCH net-next v2 0/3] ip: improve tcp sock multipath routing Willem de Bruijn
2025-04-24 14:35 ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/3] ipv4: prefer multipath nexthop that matches source address Willem de Bruijn
2025-04-24 16:47 ` Eric Dumazet
2025-04-25 14:59 ` Ido Schimmel
2025-04-26 15:01 ` Willem de Bruijn
2025-04-27 17:30 ` Ido Schimmel [this message]
2025-04-28 16:26 ` Willem de Bruijn
2025-04-29 7:54 ` Ido Schimmel
2025-04-24 14:35 ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] ip: load balance tcp connections to single dst addr and port Willem de Bruijn
2025-04-24 16:05 ` David Ahern
2025-04-24 16:51 ` Eric Dumazet
2025-04-25 15:14 ` Ido Schimmel
2025-04-24 14:35 ` [PATCH net-next v2 3/3] selftests/net: test tcp connection load balancing Willem de Bruijn
2025-04-25 15:47 ` Ido Schimmel
2025-04-29 14:40 ` [PATCH net-next v2 0/3] ip: improve tcp sock multipath routing patchwork-bot+netdevbpf
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=aA5px6qCjTWbHimM@shredder \
--to=idosch@nvidia.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kuniyu@amazon.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=willemb@google.com \
--cc=willemdebruijn.kernel@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).