Re: Question: should local address be expired when updating PMTU?
From: shengyong <hidden>
Date: 2015-02-03 01:28:44
Also in:
lvs-devel
在 2015/2/3 8:52, Alex Gartrell 写道:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Hello Shengyong,quoted
diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c index b2614b2..b80317a 100644 --- a/net/ipv6/route.c +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c@@ -1136,6 +1136,9 @@ static void ip6_rt_update_pmtu(struct dst_entry *dst, struct sock *sk, { struct rt6_info *rt6 = (struct rt6_info*)dst; + if (rt6->rt6i_flags & RTF_LOCAL) + return; + dst_confirm(dst); if (mtu < dst_mtu(dst) && rt6->rt6i_dst.plen == 128) { struct net *net = dev_net(dst->dev);So is this modification correct? Or how can we avoid such expiring?FWIW, we encountered this problem with IPVS tunneling. Here's a patch done by Calvin (cc'ed) that fixes my attempted fix for this. We're not particularly proud of this... At a high level, I don't think the RTF_LOCAL check was sufficient, but I didn't investigate deeply enough and hopefully Calvin can say why.diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c index f14d49b..c607a42 100644 --- a/net/ipv6/route.c +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c@@ -1159,18 +1159,18 @@ static void ip6_rt_update_pmtu(struct dst_entry *dst, struct sock *sk, } dst_metric_set(dst, RTAX_MTU, mtu); - /* FACEBOOK HACK: We need to not expire local non-expiring - * routes so that we don't accidentally start blackholing - * ipvs traffic when we happen to use it locally for - * healthchecking (see ip_vs_xmit.c -- - * __ip_vs_get_out_rt_v6 invokes update_pmtu if the rt is - * associated with a socket) - * Alex Gartrell <agartrell@fb.com> + /* + * FACEBOOK HACK: Only expire routes that aren't destined for + * the loopback interface. + * + * This prevents the strange route coalescing that happens when + * you add an address to the loopback that had a route that had + * been used when the address didn't exist from getting expired + * and causing packet loss in shiv. */ - if (!(rt6->rt6i_flags & RTF_LOCAL) || - (rt6->rt6i_flags & (RTF_EXPIRES | RTF_CACHE))) - rt6_update_expires( - rt6, net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_mtu_expires); + if (!(dst->dev->flags & IFF_LOOPBACK)) + rt6_update_expires(rt6, + net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_mtu_expires); } }
Thanks, your approach can also solve the problem I met. I just a bit confuse that is this kind of packets (like I sent in the first mail) normal? and if they are abnormal, I think we'd better drop them before update rt6i_flags. thx, Sheng
Cheers,