lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH bpf] bpf: check for data_len before upgrading mss when 6 to 4
Date
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 09:50:03AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 4:25 AM Dongseok Yi <dseok.yi@samsung.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 09:53:45PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:45 PM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 2021/5/7 9:25, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > > >>>> head_skb's data_len is the sum of skb_gro_len for each skb of the frags.
> > > > >>>> data_len could be 8 if server sent a small size packet and it is GROed
> > > > >>>> to head_skb.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Please let me know if I am missing something.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> This is my understanding of the data path. This is a forwarding path
> > > > >>> for TCP traffic.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> GRO is enabled and will coalesce multiple segments into a single large
> > > > >>> packet. In bad cases, the coalesced packet payload is > MSS, but < MSS
> > > > >>> + 20.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Somewhere between GRO and GSO you have a BPF program that converts the
> > > > >>> IPv6 address to IPv4.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Your understanding is right. The data path is GRO -> BPF 6 to 4 ->
> > > > >> GSO.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> There is no concept of head_skb at the time of this BPF program. It is
> > > > >>> a single SKB, with an skb linear part and multiple data items in the
> > > > >>> frags (no frag_list).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sorry for the confusion. head_skb what I mentioned was a skb linear
> > > > >> part. I'm considering a single SKB with frags too.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> When entering the GSO stack, this single skb now has a payload length
> > > > >>> < MSS. So it would just make a valid TCP packet on its own?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> skb_gro_len is only relevant inside the GRO stack. It internally casts
> > > > >>> the skb->cb[] to NAPI_GRO_CB. This field is a scratch area that may be
> > > > >>> reused for other purposes later by other layers of the datapath. It is
> > > > >>> not safe to read this inside bpf_skb_proto_6_to_4.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The condition what I made uses skb->data_len not skb_gro_len. Does
> > > > >> skb->data_len have a different meaning on each layer? As I know,
> > > > >> data_len indicates the amount of frags or frag_list. skb->data_len
> > > > >> should be > 20 in the sample case because the payload size of the skb
> > > > >> linear part is the same with mss.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, got it.
> > > > >
> > > > > data_len is the length of the skb minus the length in the skb linear
> > > > > section (as seen in skb_headlen).
> > > > >
> > > > > So this gso skb consists of two segments, the first one entirely
> > > > > linear, the payload of the second is in skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[0].
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not guaranteed that gso skbs built from two individual skbs end
> > > > > up looking like that. Only protocol headers in the linear segment and
> > > > > the payload of both in frags is common.
> > > > >
> > > > >> We can modify netif_needs_gso as another option to hit
> > > > >> skb_needs_linearize in validate_xmit_skb. But I think we should compare
> > > > >> skb->gso_size and skb->data_len too to check if mss exceed a payload
> > > > >> size.
> > > > >
> > > > > The rest of the stack does not build such gso packets with payload len
> > > > > < mss, so we should not have to add workarounds in the gso hot path
> > > > > for this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also no need to linearize this skb. I think that if the bpf program
> > > > > would just clear the gso type, the packet would be sent correctly.
> > > > > Unless I'm missing something.
> > > >
> > > > Does the checksum/len field in ip and tcp/udp header need adjusting
> > > > before clearing gso type as the packet has became bigger?
> > >
> > > gro takes care of this. see for instance inet_gro_complete for updates
> > > to the ip header.
> >
> > I think clearing the gso type will get an error at tcp4_gso_segment
> > because netif_needs_gso returns true in validate_xmit_skb.
>
> Oh right. Whether a packet is gso is defined by gso_size being
> non-zero, not by gso_type.
>
> > >
> > > > Also, instead of testing skb->data_len, may test the skb->len?
> > > >
> > > > skb->len - (mac header + ip/ipv6 header + udp/tcp header) > mss + len_diff
> > >
> > > Yes. Essentially doing the same calculation as the gso code that is
> > > causing the packet to be dropped.
> >
> > BPF program is usually out of control. Can we take a general approach?
> > The below 2 cases has no issue when mss upgrading.
> > 1) skb->data_len > mss + 20
> > 2) skb->data_len < mss && skb->data_len > 20
> > The corner case is when
> > 3) skb->data_len > mss && skb->data_len < mss + 20
>
> Again, you cannot use skb->data_len alone to make inferences about the
> size of the second packet.

This approach is oriented a general way that does not make inferences
about the size of the second packet.

We can obviously increase the mss size when
1) skb->data_len > mss + 20
The issue will be fixed even if we consider the #1 condition.

But there is a precondition that mss < skb payload. If skb->data_len <
mss then skb_headlen(skb) contains the size of mss. So, we can check
the #2 condition too.
2) skb->data_len < mss && skb->data_len > 20

>
> >
> > But to cover #3 case, we should check the condition Yunsheng Lin said.
> > What if we do mss upgrading for both #1 and #2 cases only?
> >
> > + unsigned short off_len = skb->data_len > shinfo->gso_size ?
> > + shinfo->gso_size : 0;
> > [...]
> > /* Due to IPv4 header, MSS can be upgraded. */
> > - skb_increase_gso_size(shinfo, len_diff);
> > + if (skb->data_len - off_len > len_diff)
> > + skb_increase_gso_size(shinfo, len_diff);
>
> That generates TCP packets with different MSS within the same stream.
>
> My suggestion remains to just not change MSS at all. But this has to
> be a new flag to avoid changing established behavior.

I don't understand why the mss size should be kept in GSO step. Will
there be any issue with different mss?

In general, upgrading mss make sense when 6 to 4. The new flag would be
set by user to not change mss. What happened if user does not set the
flag? I still think we should fix the issue with a general approach. Or
can we remove the skb_increase_gso_size line?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-05-10 04:22    [W:2.300 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site