From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>
To: Jianbo Liu <jianbol@nvidia.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org,
steffen.klassert@secunet.com, Cosmin Ratiu <cratiu@nvidia.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Simon Horman <horms@kernel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ipsec v3 2/2] xfrm: Determine inner GSO type from packet inner protocol
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 12:03:36 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aQCjCEDvL4VJIsoV@krikkit> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251028023013.9836-3-jianbol@nvidia.com>
2025-10-28, 04:22:48 +0200, Jianbo Liu wrote:
> The GSO segmentation functions for ESP tunnel mode
> (xfrm4_tunnel_gso_segment and xfrm6_tunnel_gso_segment) were
> determining the inner packet's L2 protocol type by checking the static
> x->inner_mode.family field from the xfrm state.
>
> This is unreliable. In tunnel mode, the state's actual inner family
> could be defined by x->inner_mode.family or by
> x->inner_mode_iaf.family. Checking only the former can lead to a
> mismatch with the actual packet being processed, causing GSO to create
> segments with the wrong L2 header type.
>
> This patch fixes the bug by deriving the inner mode directly from the
> packet's inner protocol stored in XFRM_MODE_SKB_CB(skb)->protocol.
>
> Instead of replicating the code, this patch modifies the
> xfrm_ip2inner_mode helper function. It now correctly returns
> &x->inner_mode if the selector family (x->sel.family) is already
> specified, thereby handling both specific and AF_UNSPEC cases
> appropriately.
(nit: I think this paragraph goes a bit too much into describing the
changes between versions)
> With this change, ESP GSO can use xfrm_ip2inner_mode to get the
> correct inner mode. It doesn't affect existing callers, as the updated
> logic now mirrors the checks they were already performing externally.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, but I meant that the callers should also
be updated to not do the AF_UNSPEC check anymore (note: this will
cause merge conflicts with your "NULL inner_mode" cleanup patch [1]).
And I think it would be nicer to split the refactoring into a separate
patch. So this series would be:
patch 1: fix xfrm_dev_offload_ok and xfrm_get_inner_ipproto (same as now)
patch 2: modify xfrm_ip2inner_mode and remove the AF_UNSPEC check and
setting inner_mode = &x->inner_mode from all callers
[no behavior change, just a refactoring to prepare for patch 3]
patch 3: use xfrm_ip2inner_mode for GSO (same as your v2 patch 2/2)
Does that seem ok to you?
And to avoid the merge conflict with [1], maybe it also makes more
sense to integrate that clean up in patch 2 from the list above, so
for ip_vti we'd have:
diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c b/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c
index 95b6bb78fcd2..89784976c65e 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/ip_vti.c
@@ -118,16 +118,7 @@ static int vti_rcv_cb(struct sk_buff *skb, int err)
x = xfrm_input_state(skb);
- inner_mode = &x->inner_mode;
-
- if (x->sel.family == AF_UNSPEC) {
- inner_mode = xfrm_ip2inner_mode(x, XFRM_MODE_SKB_CB(skb)->protocol);
- if (inner_mode == NULL) {
- XFRM_INC_STATS(dev_net(skb->dev),
- LINUX_MIB_XFRMINSTATEMODEERROR);
- return -EINVAL;
- }
- }
+ inner_mode = xfrm_ip2inner_mode(x, XFRM_MODE_SKB_CB(skb)->protocol);
family = inner_mode->family;
Does that sound reasonable?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20251027023818.46446-1-jianbol@nvidia.com/
--
Sabrina
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-28 11:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-28 2:22 [PATCH ipsec v3 0/2] xfrm: Correct inner packet family determination Jianbo Liu
2025-10-28 2:22 ` [PATCH ipsec v3 1/2] xfrm: Check inner packet family directly from skb_dst Jianbo Liu
2025-10-28 14:27 ` Zhu Yanjun
2025-10-28 2:22 ` [PATCH ipsec v3 2/2] xfrm: Determine inner GSO type from packet inner protocol Jianbo Liu
2025-10-28 11:03 ` Sabrina Dubroca [this message]
2025-10-28 13:36 ` Jianbo Liu
2025-10-28 15:04 ` Sabrina Dubroca
2025-10-30 8:08 ` Steffen Klassert
2025-10-30 8:35 ` Jianbo Liu
2025-10-30 10:28 ` Sabrina Dubroca
2025-11-01 12:29 ` [PATCH ipsec v3 0/2] xfrm: Correct inner packet family determination Steffen Klassert
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=aQCjCEDvL4VJIsoV@krikkit \
--to=sd@queasysnail.net \
--cc=cratiu@nvidia.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=horms@kernel.org \
--cc=jianbol@nvidia.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.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).