netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc: Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
	Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/8] udp: fixup csum for GSO receive slow path
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2021 13:25:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c7ee2326473578aa1600bf7c062f37c01e95550a.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+FuTSed_T6+QbdgEUCo2Qy39mH1AVRoPqFYvt_vkRiFxfW7ZA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 2021-03-26 at 14:30 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 1:24 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wrote:
> > When UDP packets generated locally by a socket with UDP_SEGMENT
> > traverse the following path:
> > 
> > UDP tunnel(xmit) -> veth (segmentation) -> veth (gro) ->
> >         UDP tunnel (rx) -> UDP socket (no UDP_GRO)
> > 
> > they are segmented as part of the rx socket receive operation, and
> > present a CHECKSUM_NONE after segmentation.
> 
> would be good to capture how this happens, as it was not immediately obvious.

The CHECKSUM_PARTIAL is propagated up to the UDP tunnel processing,
where we have:

	__iptunnel_pull_header() -> skb_pull_rcsum() ->
skb_postpull_rcsum() -> __skb_postpull_rcsum() and the latter do the
conversion.

> > Additionally the segmented packets UDP CB still refers to the original
> > GSO packet len. Overall that causes unexpected/wrong csum validation
> > errors later in the UDP receive path.
> > 
> > We could possibly address the issue with some additional checks and
> > csum mangling in the UDP tunnel code. Since the issue affects only
> > this UDP receive slow path, let's set a suitable csum status there.
> > 
> > v1 -> v2:
> >  - restrict the csum update to the packets strictly needing them
> >  - hopefully clarify the commit message and code comments
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
> > +       if (skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_NONE && !skb->csum_valid)
> > +               skb->csum_valid = 1;
> 
> Not entirely obvious is that UDP packets arriving on a device with rx
> checksum offload off, i.e., with CHECKSUM_NONE, are not matched by
> this test.
> 
> I assume that such packets are not coalesced by the GRO layer in the
> first place. But I can't immediately spot the reason for it..

Packets with CHECKSUM_NONE are actually aggregated by the GRO engine. 

Their checksum is validated by:

udp4_gro_receive -> skb_gro_checksum_validate_zero_check()
	-> __skb_gro_checksum_validate -> __skb_gro_checksum_validate_complete() 

and skb->ip_summed is changed to CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY by:

__skb_gro_checksum_validate -> skb_gro_incr_csum_unnecessary
	-> __skb_incr_checksum_unnecessary()

and finally to CHECKSUM_PARTIAL by:

udp4_gro_complete() -> udp_gro_complete() -> udp_gro_complete_segment()

Do you prefer I resubmit with some more comments, either in the commit
message or in the code?

Thanks

Paolo

side note: perf probe here is fooled by skb->ip_summed being a bitfield
and does not dump the real value. I had to look at skb-
>__pkt_type_offset[0] instead.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-29 11:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-25 17:23 [PATCH net-next v2 0/8] udp: GRO L4 improvements Paolo Abeni
2021-03-25 17:24 ` [PATCH net-next v2 1/8] udp: fixup csum for GSO receive slow path Paolo Abeni
2021-03-26 18:30   ` Willem de Bruijn
2021-03-29 11:25     ` Paolo Abeni [this message]
2021-03-29 12:28       ` Willem de Bruijn
2021-03-29 13:24         ` Paolo Abeni
2021-03-29 13:52           ` Willem de Bruijn
2021-03-29 15:00             ` Paolo Abeni
2021-03-29 15:24               ` Willem de Bruijn
2021-03-29 16:23                 ` Paolo Abeni
2021-03-29 22:37                   ` Willem de Bruijn
2021-03-25 17:24 ` [PATCH net-next v2 2/8] udp: skip L4 aggregation for UDP tunnel packets Paolo Abeni
2021-03-26 18:23   ` Willem de Bruijn
2021-03-25 17:24 ` [PATCH net-next v2 3/8] udp: properly complete L4 GRO over UDP tunnel packet Paolo Abeni
2021-03-26 17:51   ` Willem de Bruijn
2021-03-25 17:24 ` [PATCH net-next v2 4/8] udp: never accept GSO_FRAGLIST packets Paolo Abeni
2021-03-26 18:15   ` Willem de Bruijn
2021-03-29  8:11     ` Paolo Abeni
2021-03-29 12:31       ` Willem de Bruijn
2021-03-29 13:29         ` Paolo Abeni
2021-03-25 17:24 ` [PATCH net-next v2 5/8] vxlan: allow L4 GRO passthrough Paolo Abeni
2021-03-25 17:24 ` [PATCH net-next v2 6/8] geneve: allow UDP L4 GRO passthrou Paolo Abeni
2021-03-25 17:24 ` [PATCH net-next v2 7/8] bareudp: " Paolo Abeni
2021-03-25 17:24 ` [PATCH net-next v2 8/8] selftests: net: add UDP GRO forwarding self-tests Paolo Abeni

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=c7ee2326473578aa1600bf7c062f37c01e95550a.camel@redhat.com \
    --to=pabeni@redhat.com \
    --cc=alobakin@pm.me \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=kuba@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.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).