Thread (11 messages) flat view 11 messages, 4 authors, 2017-09-22

Re: [net-next 1/2] dummy: add device MTU validation check

From: Eric Dumazet <hidden>
Date: 2017-09-22 11:05:13

On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 10:56 +0200, Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
2017-09-21, 08:02:18 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
quoted
On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 21:32 +0800, Zhang Shengju wrote:
quoted
Currently, any mtu value can be assigned when adding a new dummy device:
[~]# ip link add name dummy1 mtu 100000 type dummy
[~]# ip link show dummy1
15: dummy1: <BROADCAST,NOARP> mtu 100000 qdisc noop state DOWN mode DEFAULT group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 0a:61:6b:16:14:ce brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff

This patch adds device MTU validation check.
What is wrong with big MTU on dummy ?
It looks like the "centralize MTU checking" series broke that, but
only for changing the MTU on an existing dummy device. Commit
a52ad514fdf3 defined min_mtu/max_mtu in ether_setup, which dummy uses,
but there was no MTU check in dummy prior to that commit.
It looks like we accept big mtu on loopback, right ?

lpaa23:~# ifconfig lo mtu 100000
lpaa23:~# ifconfig lo
lo        Link encap:Local Loopback  
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
          inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:100000  Metric:1
          RX packets:3823 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:3823 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 
          RX bytes:759159 (759.1 KB)  TX bytes:759159 (759.1 KB)

Also we accept very small MTU as well (although this automatically
removes IP addresses, as one would expect)

lpaa23:~# ifconfig lo mtu 50
lpaa23:~# ifconfig lo
lo        Link encap:Local Loopback  
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:50  Metric:1
          RX packets:4052 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:4052 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 
          RX bytes:806274 (806.2 KB)  TX bytes:806274 (806.2 KB)



So, why dummy devices would not accept bit MTU ?

Do we have some fundamental assumption in the stack ?

If yes, we need to fix loopback urgently, it is more important than
dummy.

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