From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ipvs: Extend MTU check to account for IPv6 NAT defrag changes Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:28:54 +0900 Message-ID: <20120828082854.GA10687@verge.net.au> References: <20120827144024.5754.23872.stgit@dragon> <20120827144059.5754.55303.stgit@dragon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Julian Anastasov , Jesper Dangaard Brouer , netdev@vger.kernel.org, lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, Pablo Neira Ayuso , Hans Schillstrom , Wensong Zhang , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org To: Patrick McHardy Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: lvs-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:22:05AM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Julian Anastasov wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > >On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > >>This patch is necessary, to make IPVS work, after Patrick McHardys > >>IPv6 NAT defragmentation changes. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer > >>--- > >> > >>I would appriciate, if someone (e.g. Julian) double check the tunnel mode code. > > > > Sure > > > >>--Jesper > >> > >> net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_xmit.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- > >> 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >>@@ -956,8 +963,11 @@ ip_vs_tunnel_xmit_v6(struct sk_buff *skb, struct ip_vs_conn *cp, > >> skb_dst(skb)->ops->update_pmtu(skb_dst(skb), NULL, skb, mtu); > >> > >> /* MTU checking: Special for tunnel mode */ > >>- if (mtu < ntohs(old_iph->payload_len) + sizeof(struct ipv6hdr) && > >>- !skb_is_gso(skb)) { > >>+ if ((!IP6CB(skb)->frag_max_size && > >>+ (mtu < ntohs(old_iph->payload_len) + sizeof(struct ipv6hdr) && > >>+ !skb_is_gso(skb))) > >>+ || IP6CB(skb)->frag_max_size + sizeof(struct ipv6hdr) > mtu) { > >>+ > > > > mtu is already reduced with the new outer header size, > >may be we can just call __mtu_check_toobig_v6 with mtu? > > > >> if (!skb->dev) { > >> struct net *net = dev_net(skb_dst(skb)->dev); > > > > All other changes in patch 1 and 2 look ok and > >I'll ack them next time. > > I'd like to take the final patches through my nat-ipv6 tree in order > to avoid temporary regressions. Please let me know when they're ready > for applying. I'm fine with these changes going through your tree (rather than my IPVS tree) once they are ready.