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: <20210511044253.469034-1-yuri.benditovich@daynix.com>
 <20210511044253.469034-5-yuri.benditovich@daynix.com> <eb8c4984-f0cc-74ee-537f-fc60deaaaa73@redhat.com>
 <CAOEp5OdrCDPx4ijLcEOm=Wxma6hc=nyqw4Xm6bggBxvgtR0tbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <89759261-3a72-df6c-7a81-b7a48abfad44@redhat.com> <CAOEp5Ocm9Q69Fv=oeyCs01F9J4nCTPiOPpw9_BRZ0WnF+LtEFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEsZBCzV+d_eLj1aYT+pkS5m1QAy7q8rUkNsdV0C8aL8tQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOEp5OeSankfA6urXLW_fquSMrZ+WYXDtKNacort1UwR=WgxqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEt3bZrdqbWtWjSkXvv5v8iCHiN8hkD3T602RZnb6nPd9A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOEp5Odw=eaQWZCXr+U8PipPtO1Avjw-t3gEdKyvNYxuNa5TfQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEuqXaJxGqC+CLoq7k4XDu+W3E3Kk3WvG-D6tnn2K4ZPNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOEp5OfB62SQzxMj_GkVD4EM=Z+xf43TPoTZwMbPPa3BsX2ooA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEu4NdyMoFKbyUGG1aGX+K=ShMZuVuMKYPauEBYz5pxYzA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+FuTScV+AJ+O3shOMLjUcy+PjBE8uWqCNt0FXWnq9L3gzrvaw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+FuTScV+AJ+O3shOMLjUcy+PjBE8uWqCNt0FXWnq9L3gzrvaw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 May 2021 15:16:23 +0800
Message-ID: <CACGkMEuUF1vDNWbL9dRr1ZM4vFTLwc3j9uB-66451U1NvQ+2EA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tun: indicate support for USO feature
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
Cc:     Yuri Benditovich <yuri.benditovich@daynix.com>,
        Yan Vugenfirer <yan@daynix.com>, davem <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, mst <mst@redhat.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 4:35 AM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But surprisingly when TUN receives TUN_F_UFO it does not propagate it
> > > anywhere, there is no corresponding NETIF flag.
> >
> > (It looks like I drop the community and other ccs accidentally, adding
> > them back and sorry)
> >
> > Actually, there is one, NETIF_F_GSO_UDP.
> >
> > Kernel used to have NETIF_F_UFO, but it was removed due to bugs and
> > the lack of real hardware support. Then we found it breaks uABI, so
> > Willem tries to make it appear for userspace again, and then it was
> > renamed to NETIF_F_GSO_UDP.
> >
> > But I think it's a bug that we don't proporate TUN_F_UFO to NETIF
> > flag, this is a must for the driver that doesn't support
> > VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_UFO. I just try to disable all offloads and
> > mrg_rxbuf, then netperf UDP_STREAM from host to guest gives me bad
> > length packet in the guest.
> >
> > Willem, I think we probably need to fix this.
>
> We had to add back support for the kernel to accept UFO packets from
> userspace over tuntap.
>
> The kernel does not generate such packets, so a guest should never be
> concerned of receiving UFO packets.

That's my feeling as well.

But when I:

1) turn off all guest gso feature and mrg rx buffers, in this case
virtio-net will only allocate 1500 bytes for each packet
2) doing netperf (UDP_STREAM) from local host to guest, I see packet
were truncated in the guest

>
> Perhaps i'm misunderstanding the problem here.
>

I will re-check and get back to you.
(probably need a while since I will not be online for the next week).

Thanks