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;
Message-ID: <12cfe9e36292a94b8492c0747f0d9ce1e781ae20.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.10 380/530] udp: never accept GSO_FRAGLIST packets
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@denx.de>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 17 May 2021 09:47:59 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20210517065716.GA15967@amd>
References: <20210512144819.664462530@linuxfoundation.org>
         <20210512144832.263718249@linuxfoundation.org> <20210515083717.GD30461@amd>
         <2e1ffc55aedb5d10eacce34cb7a5809138528d03.camel@redhat.com>
         <20210517065716.GA15967@amd>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-2.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2021-05-17 at 08:57 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > [ Upstream commit 78352f73dc5047f3f744764cc45912498c52f3c9 ]
> > > > 
> > > > Currently the UDP protocol delivers GSO_FRAGLIST packets to
> > > > the sockets without the expected segmentation.
> > > > 
> > > > This change addresses the issue introducing and maintaining
> > > > a couple of new fields to explicitly accept SKB_GSO_UDP_L4
> > > > or GSO_FRAGLIST packets. Additionally updates  udp_unexpected_gso()
> > > > accordingly.
> > > > 
> > > > UDP sockets enabling UDP_GRO stil keep accept_udp_fraglist
> > > > zeroed.
> > > 
> > > What is going on here? accept_udp_fraglist variable is read-only.
> > 
> > Thank you for checking this!
> > 
> > The 'accept_udp_fraglist' field is implicitly initilized to zero at UDP
> > socket allocation time (done by sk_alloc).
> > 
> > So this patch effectively force segmentation of SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST
> > packets via the udp_unexpected_gso() helper.
> > 
> > We introduce the above field instead of unconditionally
> > segmenting SKB_GSO_FRAGLIST, because the next patch will use it (to
> > avoid unneeded segmentation for performance's sake for UDP tunnel), as
> > you noted.
> 
> Ok, but there's no follow up patch queued for 5.10...? Do we still
> need it there?

Patch d18931a92a0b5feddd8a39d097b90ae2867db02f is a performance
improvement, I think not worthy/suitable for stable.

For 5.10 78352f73dc5047f3f744764cc45912498c52f3c9 should be enough.

Thanks!

Paolo