> From: "Shmulik Ladkani" <shmulik.ladk...@gmail.com> > To: "Lance Richardson" <lrich...@redhat.com> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, f...@strlen.de, jtl...@redhat.com, > han...@stressinduktion.org > Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 3:42:39 AM > Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] ipv4: allow local fragmentation in > ip_finish_output_gso() > > On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 16:36:17 -0400 > Lance Richardson <lrich...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > - /* common case: fragmentation of segments is not allowed, > > - * or seglen is <= mtu > > + /* common case: seglen is <= mtu > > */ > > - if (((IPCB(skb)->flags & IPSKB_FRAG_SEGS) == 0) || > > - skb_gso_validate_mtu(skb, mtu)) > > + if (skb_gso_validate_mtu(skb, mtu)) > > return ip_finish_output2(net, sk, skb); > > OK. > Resembles https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/644724/ ;) > > > - if (skb_iif && !(df & htons(IP_DF))) { > > - /* Arrived from an ingress interface, got encapsulated, with > > - * fragmentation of encapulating frames allowed. > > - * If skb is gso, the resulting encapsulated network segments > > - * may exceed dst mtu. > > - * Allow IP Fragmentation of segments. > > - */ > > - IPCB(skb)->flags |= IPSKB_FRAG_SEGS; > > - } > > The only potential issue I see removing this, is that the KNOWLEDGE of > the forwarding/tunnel-bridging usecases (that require a > skb_gso_validate_mtu check) is lost. > > Meaning, if one decides (as claimed in the past) that locally generated > traffic must NOT go through fragmentation validation, then no one > remembers those other valid usecases (which are very specific and not > trivial to imagine) that MUST go through it; Therefore it can easily get > broken. >
Hi Shmulik, It is my understanding that the test to avoid fragmentation validation for locally originated packets was a performance optimization which was based on the premise that the IP stack will never produce locally originated packets with an MTU mismatch. Tunneling encapsulation breaks this premise. For correctness (honoring configured MTU), it seems we cannot avoid calling skb_gso_validate_mtu(). > Maybe we can elaborate in the comment above the call to > skb_gso_validate_mtu in ip_finish_output_gso? I'm not sure what could be added that would help, was there something specific you had in mind? Thanks for reviewing this. Regards, Lance > > Best, > Shmulik >
