Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Fri, 15 Apr 2022 23:56:33 -0700 | From | Peilin Ye <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH net 2/2] ip6_gre: Fix skb_under_panic in __gre6_xmit() |
| |
On Fri, Apr 15, 2022 at 07:11:33PM +0200, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:08:54 -0700 Peilin Ye wrote: > > > We should also reject using SEQ with collect_md, but that's a separate > > > issue. > > > > Could you explain this a bit more? It seems that commit 77a5196a804e > > ("gre: add sequence number for collect md mode.") added this > > intentionally. > > Interesting. Maybe a better way of dealing with the problem would be > rejecting SEQ if it's not set on the device itself.
According to ip-link(8), the 'external' option is mutually exclusive with the '[o]seq' option. In other words, a collect_md mode IP6GRETAP device should always have the TUNNEL_SEQ flag off in its 'tunnel->parms.o_flags'.
(However, I just tried:
$ ip link add dev ip6gretap11 type ip6gretap oseq external ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ...and my 'ip' executed it with no error. I will take a closer look at iproute2 later; maybe it's undefined behavior...)
How about:
1. If 'external', then 'oseq' means "always turn off NETIF_F_LLTX, so it's okay to set TUNNEL_SEQ in e.g. eBPF";
2. Otherwise, if 'external' but NOT 'oseq', then whenever we see a TUNNEL_SEQ in skb's tunnel info, we do something like WARN_ONCE() then return -EINVAL.
?
> When the device is set up without the SEQ bit enabled it disables Tx > locking (look for LLTX). This means that multiple CPUs can try to do > the tunnel->o_seqno++ in parallel. Not catastrophic but racy for sure.
Thanks for the explanation! At first glance, I was wondering why don't we make 'o_seqno' atomic until I found commit b790e01aee74 ("ip_gre: lockless xmit"). I quote:
""" Even using an atomic_t o_seq, we would increase chance for packets being out of order at receiver. """
I don't fully understand this out-of-order yet, but it seems that making 'o_seqno' atomic is not an option?
Thanks, Peilin Ye
|  |