Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-98857-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 09:13:50 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>
To: Richard Gobert <richardbgobert@gmail.com>, 
 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
Message-ID: <65ef038e78a8b_20699f29437@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
In-Reply-To: <d72bfd79-ce72-49db-b648-930a08b9302e@gmail.com>
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>
 <d72bfd79-ce72-49db-b648-930a08b9302e@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 4/4] net: gro: move L3 flush checks to
 tcp_gro_receive
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Richard Gobert wrote:
> Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > Richard Gobert wrote:
> >> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2024 at 4:35=E2=80=AFPM Richard Gobert <richardbgobe=
rt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> {inet,ipv6}_gro_receive functions perform flush checks (ttl, flags=
,
> >>>> iph->id, ...) against all packets in a loop. These flush checks ar=
e
> >>>> 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 releva=
nt
> 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_recei=
ve -
> 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.

Thanks for the context

> 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?

Yes, it's entirely reasonable to leave that out of this series.