Thread (21 messages) 21 messages, 6 authors, 2015-04-01

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,
  
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help