Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <bf56c3aa-85df-734d-f419-835a35e66e03@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2022 08:10:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.1
Subject: Re: [net-next] ipv6: fix routing cache overflow for raw sockets
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jon Maxwell <jmaxwell37@gmail.com>, davem@davemloft.net
Cc:     edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221218234801.579114-1-jmaxwell37@gmail.com>
 <9f145202ca6a59b48d4430ed26a7ab0fe4c5dfaf.camel@redhat.com>
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <9f145202ca6a59b48d4430ed26a7ab0fe4c5dfaf.camel@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/20/22 5:35 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Mon, 2022-12-19 at 10:48 +1100, Jon Maxwell wrote:
>> Sending Ipv6 packets in a loop via a raw socket triggers an issue where a 
>> route is cloned by ip6_rt_cache_alloc() for each packet sent. This quickly 
>> consumes the Ipv6 max_size threshold which defaults to 4096 resulting in 
>> these warnings:
>>
>> [1]   99.187805] dst_alloc: 7728 callbacks suppressed
>> [2] Route cache is full: consider increasing sysctl net.ipv6.route.max_size.
>> .
>> .
>> [300] Route cache is full: consider increasing sysctl net.ipv6.route.max_size.
> 
> If I read correctly, the maximum number of dst that the raw socket can
> use this way is limited by the number of packets it allows via the
> sndbuf limit, right?
> 
> Are other FLOWI_FLAG_KNOWN_NH users affected, too? e.g. nf_dup_ipv6,
> ipvs, seg6?
> 
> @DavidA: why do we need to create RTF_CACHE clones for KNOWN_NH flows?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paolo
> 

If I recall the details correctly: that sysctl limit was added back when
ipv6 routes were managed as dst_entries and there was a desire to allow
an admin to limit the memory consumed. At this point in time, IPv6 is
more inline with IPv4 - a separate struct for fib entries from dst
entries. That "Route cache is full" message is now out of date since
this is dst_entries which have a gc mechanism.

IPv4 does not limit the number of dst_entries that can be allocated
(ip_rt_max_size is the sysctl variable behind the ipv4 version of
max_size and it is a no-op). IPv6 can probably do the same here?

I do not believe the suggested flag is the right change.