Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 19:11:46 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To:     Yan Zhai <yan@cloudflare.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Aya Levin <ayal@nvidia.com>,
        Tariq Toukan <tariqt@nvidia.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@cloudflare.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: avoid atomic fragment on GSO packets
Message-ID: <20231002171146.GB9274@breakpoint.cc>
References: <ZRcOXJ0pkuph6fko@debian.debian>
 <20230930110854.GA13787@breakpoint.cc>
 <CAO3-Pbp2onn+EUhKRrB5an_tyzLcaH+1FUqrThsxXqqpBAxshA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAO3-Pbp2onn+EUhKRrB5an_tyzLcaH+1FUqrThsxXqqpBAxshA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

Yan Zhai <yan@cloudflare.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 6:09 AM Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> wrote:
> >
> > This helper is also called for skbs where IP6CB(skb)->frag_max_size
> > exceeds the MTU, so this check looks wrong to me.
> >
> > Same remark for dst_allfrag() check in __ip6_finish_output(),
> > after this patch, it would be ignored.
> >
> Thanks for covering my carelessness. I was just considering the GSO
> case so frag_max_size was overlooked. dst_allfrag is indeed a case
> based on the code logic. But just out of curiosity, do we still see
> any use of this feature? From commit messages it is set when PMTU
> values signals smaller than min IPv6 MTU. But such PMTU values are
> just dropped in __ip6_rt_update_pmtu now. Iproute2 code also does not
> provide this route feature anymore. So it might be actually a dead
> check?

I don't think iproute2 ever exposed it, I think we can axe
dst_allfrag().

> > I think you should consider to first refactor __ip6_finish_output to make
> > the existing checks more readable (e.g. handle gso vs. non-gso in separate
> > branches) and then add the check to last seg in
> > ip6_finish_output_gso_slowpath_drop().
> >
> Agree with refactoring to mirror what IPv4 code is doing. It might not
> hurt if we check every segments in this case, since it is already the
> slowpath and it will make code more compact.

No objections from my side.