Re: [PATCH net-next v6 4/5] net: gro: remove unnecessary df checks

[Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@gmail.com>]

Richard Gobert wrote:
> Paolo Abeni wrote:
>> On 9/16/25 4:48 PM, Richard Gobert wrote:
>>> Currently, packets with fixed IDs will be merged only if their
>>> don't-fragment bit is set. This restriction is unnecessary since
>>> packets without the don't-fragment bit will be forwarded as-is even
>>> if they were merged together. The merged packets will be segmented
>>> into their original forms before being forwarded, either by GSO or
>>> by TSO. The IDs will also remain identical unless NETIF_F_TSO_MANGLEID
>>> is set, in which case the IDs can become incrementing, which is also fine.
>>>
>>> Note that IP fragmentation is not an issue here, since packets are
>>> segmented before being further fragmented. Fragmentation happens the
>>> same way regardless of whether the packets were first merged together.
>>
>> I agree with Willem, that an explicit assertion somewhere (in
>> ip_do_fragmentation?!?) could be useful.
>>
> 
> As I replied to Willem, I'll mention ip_finish_output_gso explicitly in the
> commit message.
> 
> Or did you mean I should add some type of WARN_ON assertion that ip_do_fragment isn't
> called for GSO packets?
> 
>> Also I'm not sure that "packets are segmented before being further
>> fragmented" is always true for the OVS forwarding scenario.
>>
> 
> If this is really the case, it is a bug in OVS. Segmentation is required before
> fragmentation as otherwise GRO isn't transparent and fragments will be forwarded
> that contain data from multiple different packets. It's also probably less efficient,
> if the segment size is smaller than the MTU. I think this should be addressed in a
> separate patch series.
> 
> I'll also mention OVS in the commit message.
> 

I looked into it, and it seems that you are correct. Looks like fragmentation
can occur without segmentation in the OVS forwarding case. As I said, this is
a bug since generated fragments may contain data from multiple packets. Still,
this can already happen for packets with incrementing IDs and nothing special
in particular will happen for the packets discussed in this patch. This should
be fixed in a separate patch series, as do all other cases where ip_do_fragment
is called directly without segmenting the packets first.

No changes are required for the current series as it does not introduce this
issue or give it more exposure. I'll remove the comment about fragmentation
from the commit message since it's not entirely correct and it is rather
irrelevant to this patch anyway.

>> /P
>>
>