Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <Mx3BWGop6fGORN6Cpo4mHIHz2b1bb0eLxeMG8vsijnk@cp3-web-020.plabs.ch>
 <CA+FuTSdiqaZJ3HQHuEEMwKioWGKvGwZ42Oi7FpRf0hqWdZ27pQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <TSRRse4RkO_XW4DtdTkz4NeZPwzHXaPOEFU9-J4VlpLbUzlBzuhW8HYfHCfFJ1Ro6FwztEO652tbnSGOE-MjfKez1NvVPM3v3ResWtbK5Rk=@pm.me>
 <MX6AwRxaXyMi3FALeN1gpN8y4XgaktZM2MHxQMOM@cp4-web-036.plabs.ch>
In-Reply-To: <MX6AwRxaXyMi3FALeN1gpN8y4XgaktZM2MHxQMOM@cp4-web-036.plabs.ch>
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 31 Oct 2020 11:26:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+FuTSdKYVc3w9if5zB6WSWJ3M1XWNmXb-6VGJqKS0WndnPLhw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: avoid unneeded UDP L4 and fraglist GSO resegmentation
To:     Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>
Cc:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
        Antoine Tenart <atenart@kernel.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@kernel.org>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

> >> I think it is fine to reenable this again, now that UDP sockets will
> >> segment unexpected UDP GSO packets that may have looped. We previously
> >> added general software support in commit 83aa025f535f ("udp: add gso
> >> support to virtual devices"). Then reduced its scope to egress only in
> >> 8eea1ca82be9 ("gso: limit udp gso to egress-only virtual devices") to
> >> handle that edge case.
>
> Regarding bonding and teaming: I think they should also use
> NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE mask, not NETIF_F_ALL_TSO, as SCTP also has
> a software fallback. This way we could also remove a separate
> advertising of NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4, as it will be included in the first.
>
> So, if this one:
> 1. Add NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 and NETIF_F_GSO_FRAGLIST to
>    NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE;
> 2. Change bonding and teaming features mask from NETIF_F_ALL_TSO |
>    NETIF_F_GSO_UDP_L4 to NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE;
> 3. Check that every virtual netdev has NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE _or_
>    NETIF_F_GSO_MASK in its advertising.
>
> is fine for everyone, I'll publish more appropriate and polished v2 soon.

I think we can revert 8eea1ca82be9. Except for the part where it
defines the feature in NETIF_F_GSO_ENCAP_ALL instead of
NETIF_F_GSO_SOFTWARE. That appears to have been a peculiar choice. I
can't recall exactly why I chose that. Most likely because that was
(at the time) the only macro that covered all the devices I wanted to
capture.

As for SCTP: that has the same concern that prompted that commit for
UDP: is it safe to forward those packets to the ingress path today?