Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-98853-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <d72bfd79-ce72-49db-b648-930a08b9302e@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:08:07 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/4] net: gro: move L3 flush checks to
 tcp_gro_receive
To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com,
 dsahern@kernel.org, xeb@mail.ru, shuah@kernel.org, idosch@nvidia.com,
 razor@blackwall.org, amcohen@nvidia.com, petrm@nvidia.com, jbenc@redhat.com,
 bpoirier@nvidia.com, b.galvani@gmail.com, gavinl@nvidia.com,
 liujian56@huawei.com, horms@kernel.org, linyunsheng@huawei.com,
 therbert@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
References: <f939c84a-2322-4393-a5b0-9b1e0be8ed8e@gmail.com>
 <88831c36-a589-429f-8e8b-2ecb66a30263@gmail.com>
 <CANn89iK5+wqYdqMt_Rg3+jO+Xf4n4yO4kOK0kzNdqh99qgL3iQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <967ed173-b556-4bfc-b3c8-ff0fc902b951@gmail.com>
 <65eef506331e8_1db78c2941c@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
From: Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <65eef506331e8_1db78c2941c@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> Richard Gobert wrote:
>> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 4:35 PM Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> {inet,ipv6}_gro_receive functions perform flush checks (ttl, flags,
>>>> iph->id, ...) against all packets in a loop. These flush checks are
>>>> relevant only to tcp flows, and as such they're used to determine whether
>>>> the packets can be merged later in tcp_gro_receive.
>>>>
>>>> These checks are not relevant to UDP packets.
>>>
>>> I do not think this claim is true.
>>>
>>> Incoming packets  ->  GRO -> GSO -> forwarded packets
>>>
>>> The {GRO,GSO} step must be transparent, GRO is not LRO.
>>
>> Sorry, I should rephrase myself. The patch preserves the
>> current logic in GRO. These L3 checks (ttl, flags, etc.) are written to
>> NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->{flush,flush_id}, and NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->is_atomic - and
>> all of these are currently used only in tcp_gro_receive.
> 
> That was perhaps an oversight when adding UDP GRO?
> 
> Simply because the flush is determined in the innermost callback.

It might have been an oversight. From what I have seen it's only relevant
to GRO's UDP fraglist path (it was added in 9fd1ff5d ("udp: Support UDP
fraglist GRO/GSO.")). That's the only UDP path that calls skb_gro_receive -
which may alter the forwarded packets and make GRO/GSO not transparent.

AFAIU NAPI_GRO_CB(p)->flush value is not overwritten in encapsulation - it
is determined by both outer and inner callbacks.

I tried to preserve the current behaviour in GRO - if we want to change
this behaviour I'll gladly do it, although I'd prefer to address it in a
different patch series. What do you think?

Thanks