Re: [net PATCH] net: virtio: cap mtu when XDP programs are running

[Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>]

On 2017年01月10日 10:51, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:29:39AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2017年01月10日 07:58, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:49:27PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>> On 17-01-09 03:24 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 03:13:15PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>>>> On 17-01-09 03:05 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 11:09:14AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2017年01月05日 02:57, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017年01月04日 00:48, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 17-01-02 10:14 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017年01月03日 06:30, John Fastabend wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> XDP programs can not consume multiple pages so we cap the MTU to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid this case. Virtio-net however only checks the MTU at XDP
>>>>>>>>>>>>> program load and does not block MTU changes after the program
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has loaded.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch sets/clears the max_mtu value at XDP load/unload time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend<john.r.fastabend@intel.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK so this logic is a bit too simply. When it resets the max_mtu I guess it
>>>>>>>>>>> needs to read the mtu via
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>        virtio_cread16(vdev, ...)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> or we may break the negotiated mtu.
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is a problem (even use ETH_MAX_MTU). We may need a method to notify
>>>>>>>>>> the device about the mtu in this case which is not supported by virtio now.
>>>>>>>>> Note this is not really a XDP specific problem. The guest can change the MTU
>>>>>>>>> after init time even without XDP which I assume should ideally result in a
>>>>>>>>> notification if the MTU is negotiated.
>>>>>>>> Yes, Michael, do you think we need add some mechanism to notify host about
>>>>>>>> MTU change in this case?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Why does host care?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well the guest will drop packets after mtu has been reduced.
>>>>> I didn't know. What place in code does this?
>>>>>
>>>> hmm in many of the drivers it is convention to use the mtu to set the rx
>>>> buffer sizes and a receive side max length filter. For example in the Intel
>>>> drivers if a packet with length greater than MTU + some headroom is received we
>>>> drop it. I guess in the networking stack RX path though nothing forces this and
>>>> virtio doesn't have any code to drop packets on rx size.
>>>>
>>>> In virtio I don't see any existing case currently. In the XDP case though we
>>>> need to ensure packets fit in a page for the time being which is why I was
>>>> looking at this code and generated this patch.
>>> I'd say just look at the hardware max mtu. Ignore the configured mtu.
>>>
>>>
>> Does this work for small buffers consider it always allocate skb with size
>> of GOOD_PACKET_LEN?
> Spec says hardware won't send in packets > max mtu in config space.

Yes, but if max mtu is greater than GOOD_PACKET_LEN, packet will be dropped.

>
>> I think in any case, we should limit max_mtu to
>> GOOD_PACKET_LEN for small buffers.
>>
>> Thanks
> XDP seems to have a bunch of weird restrictions, I just
> do not like it that the logic spills out to all drivers.
> What if someone decides to extend it to two pages in the future?
> Recode it all in all drivers ...
>
> Why can't net core enforce mtu?
>

Not sure it's a good idea to change mtu silently without notifying user.

Thanks