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: Fri, 25 Apr 2025 17:59:48 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aAujZJXqlG8VZpJF@shredder> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250424143549.669426-2-willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
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].
I guess it's not a problem in practice because the initial route lookup
for the source address wouldn't have chosen the linkdown nexthop to
begin with.
>
> - res->nh_sel = nhsel;
> - res->nhc = &nexthop_nh->nh_common;
> - return;
> + if (!saddr || nexthop_nh->nh_saddr == saddr) {
> + res->nh_sel = nhsel;
> + res->nhc = &nexthop_nh->nh_common;
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (found)
> + return;
> +
> } endfor_nexthops(fi);
> }
[1]
#!/bin/bash
ip link del dev dummy1 &> /dev/null
ip link del dev dummy2 &> /dev/null
ip link add name dummy1 up type dummy
ip link add name dummy2 up type dummy
ip address add 192.0.2.1/28 dev dummy1
ip address add 192.0.2.17/28 dev dummy2
ip route add 192.0.2.32/28 \
nexthop via 192.0.2.2 dev dummy1 \
nexthop via 192.0.2.18 dev dummy2
ip link set dev dummy2 carrier off
sysctl -wq net.ipv4.fib_multipath_hash_policy=1
sysctl -wq net.ipv4.conf.all.ignore_routes_with_linkdown=1
sleep 1
ip route show 192.0.2.32/28
for i in {1..100}; do
ip route get to 192.0.2.33 from 192.0.2.17 ipproto tcp sport $i dport $i | grep dummy2
done
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-25 15:00 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 [this message]
2025-04-26 15:01 ` Willem de Bruijn
2025-04-27 17:30 ` Ido Schimmel
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=aAujZJXqlG8VZpJF@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).