From: Roi Dayan <roid@nvidia.com>
To: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Paul Blakey" <paulb@nvidia.com>, Oz Shlomo <ozsh@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/1] netfilter: conntrack: Check offload bit on table dump
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:04:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <edb8da93-d859-e7ae-53dd-cae09dff2eba@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210201115036.GB12443@breakpoint.cc>
On 2021-02-01 1:50 PM, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Roi Dayan <roid@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>>> There is a 3rd caller nf_ct_gc_expired() which being called by 3
>>>> other callers:
>>>> ____nf_conntrack_find()
>>>> nf_conntrack_tuple_taken()
>>>> early_drop_list()
>>>
>>> Hm. I'm not sure yet what path is triggering this bug.
>>>
>>> Florian came up with the idea of setting a very large timeout for
>>> offloaded flows (that are refreshed by the garbage collector) to avoid
>>> the extra check from the packet path, so those 3 functions above never
>>> hit the garbage collection path. This also applies for the ctnetlink
>>> (conntrack -L) and the /proc/net/nf_conntrack sysctl paths that the
>>> patch describes, those should not ever see an offloaded flow with a
>>> small timeout.
>>>
>>> nf_ct_offload_timeout() is called from:
>>>
>>> #1 flow_offload_add() to set a very large timer.
>>> #2 the garbage collector path, to refresh the timeout the very large
>>> offload timer.
>>>
>>> Probably there is a race between setting the IPS_OFFLOAD and when
>>> flow_offload_add() is called? Garbage collector gets in between and
>>> zaps the connection. Is a newly offloaded connection that you observed
>>> that is being removed?
>>>
>>
>> yes. the flows being removed are newly offloaded connections.
>
> If they are new, how can they be timed out already?
>
> TCP initial timeout is one minute, UDP 30 seconds.
> That should surely be enough to do flow_offload_add (which extends
> the timeout)?
Yes, flow_offload_add() extends the timeout. but it needs to finish.
>
> Maybe something is doing flow_offload_add() for unconfirmed conntrack?
>
> In unconfirmed conntrack case, ct->timeout is absolute timeout value, e.g. for
> tcp it will be set to 60 * HZ.
When I hit the issue I printed jiffies and ct->timeout and saw they are
the same or very close but not an absolute number.
>
> conntrack confirmation adds jiffies32 to it to make it relative
> to current time (this is before insertion into the conntrack table,
> so GC isn't supposed to happen before this).
>
We hit this issue before more easily and pushed this fix
4203b19c2796 netfilter: flowtable: Set offload timeout when adding flow
That commit changed flow_offload_add() to extend ct timeout because on
we noticed on busy systems GC didn't finish a full iteration on all
conns and conns were cleaned.
I think we might have the same issue.
tcf_ct_flow_table_add() set the offload bit and calls flow_offload_add()
We do know the offload bit is set when conn it deleted, so we hit the
issue where timeout being tested after tcf_ct_flow_table_add() was
called but before ct timeout was fixed. so flow_offload_add() didn't
finish and GC didn't start, or did start but did not finish full
iteration.
> In any case adding test for the offload bit seems to be papering over
> invalid/broken ct->timeout value.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-01 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-28 7:40 [PATCH net 1/1] netfilter: conntrack: Check offload bit on table dump Roi Dayan
2021-01-30 12:01 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
[not found] ` <3a29e9b5-7bf8-5c00-3ede-738f9b4725bf@nvidia.com>
[not found] ` <997cbda4-acd1-a000-1408-269bc5c3abf3@nvidia.com>
2021-02-01 3:08 ` Pablo Neira Ayuso
2021-02-01 7:53 ` Roi Dayan
2021-02-01 11:50 ` Florian Westphal
2021-02-01 15:04 ` Roi Dayan [this message]
2021-02-01 15:25 ` Florian Westphal
2021-02-02 17:08 ` Roi Dayan
2021-02-03 12:50 ` Florian Westphal
2021-02-07 8:38 ` Roi Dayan
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=edb8da93-d859-e7ae-53dd-cae09dff2eba@nvidia.com \
--to=roid@nvidia.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ozsh@nvidia.com \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=paulb@nvidia.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).