> From: "Shmulik Ladkani" <shmulik.ladk...@gmail.com>
> To: "Lance Richardson" <lrich...@redhat.com>, f...@strlen.de,
> han...@stressinduktion.org
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, jtl...@redhat.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2016 4:27:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net v3] ipv4: allow local fragmentation in
> ip_finish_output_gso()
>
> Hi Hannes, Lance,
>
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 16:36:17 -0400 Lance Richardson <lrich...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > - 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;
> > - }
>
> Thinking this over, I'm concerned of this change.
>
> Few months back, we discussed this and got to the conclusion that in the
> "ingress,tunnel,egress" scenario, segments are allowed to be
> fragmented if the original inner ip packet does NOT have the DF.
>
> See
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/657132/
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/661219/
>
> I think you expressed that those tunneled skbs already having DF set
> should go through pmtu discovery.
>
> Suggested patch unconditionally calls skb_gso_validate_mtu().
>
> Thus we're changing behavior for "ingress,tunnel,egress" scenario of
> the tunneled packets having DF set in the inner iph.
>
> WDYT?
>
I'm still digesting the patchwork history, but it seems to me:
1) If we call skb_gso_validate_mtu() and it returns true,
ip_finish_output2() will
be called, just as before, so nothing changes.
2) If we were to avoid calling skb_gso_validate_mtu() when it would have
returned
false and call ip_finish_output2() without performing fragmentation, we
would transmit (or attempt to transmit) a packet that exceeds the
configured
MTU.
3) If we do call skb_gso_validate_mtu() and it returns false,
ip_finish_output_gso()
will call ip_fragment() to perform needed fragmentation. Whether
fragmentation
actually occurs at this point depends on the value of the DF flag in the
IP header (and perhaps skb->ignore_df, frag_max_size, etc.).
Is the issue you're pointing out about cases in which the inner IP header has
DF set
but the tunnel header does not?
Thanks,
Lance
