Re: [RFC PATCH net] udp: check sk for UDP GRO fraglist
From: Alexander Lobakin <hidden>
Date: 2021-01-11 12:11:02
Also in:
lkml
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 09:43:22 +0100
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:02:42AM +0900, Dongseok Yi wrote:quoted
On 2021-01-08 22:35, Steffen Klassert wrote:quoted
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:52:28PM +0900, Dongseok Yi wrote:quoted
It is a workaround patch. UDP/IP header of UDP GROed frag_skbs are not updated even after NAT forwarding. Only the header of head_skb from ip_finish_output_gso -> skb_gso_segment is updated but following frag_skbs are not updated. A call path skb_mac_gso_segment -> inet_gso_segment -> udp4_ufo_fragment -> __udp_gso_segment -> __udp_gso_segment_list does not try to update any UDP/IP header of the segment list. It might make sense because each skb of frag_skbs is converted to a list of regular packets. Header update with checksum calculation may be not needed for UDP GROed frag_skbs. But UDP GRO frag_list is started from udp_gro_receive, we don't know whether the skb will be NAT forwarded at that time. For workaround, try to get sock always when call udp4_gro_receive -> udp_gro_receive to check if the skb is for local. I'm still not sure if UDP GRO frag_list is really designed for local session only. Can kernel support NAT forward for UDP GRO frag_list? What am I missing?The initial idea when I implemented this was to have a fast forwarding path for UDP. So forwarding is a usecase, but NAT is a problem, indeed. A quick fix could be to segment the skb before it gets NAT forwarded. Alternatively we could check for a header change in __udp_gso_segment_list and update the header of the frag_skbs accordingly in that case.Thank you for explaining. Can I think of it as a known issue?No, it was not known before you reported it.quoted
I think we should have a fix because NAT can be triggered by user. Can I check the current status? Already planning a patch or a new patch should be written?We have to do a new patch to fix that issue. If you want do do so, go ahead.
This patch is incorrect. I do NAT UDP GRO Fraglists via nftables (both with and without flow offload) with no issues since March'20. Packet loss rates are always +/- 0, so I can say it works properly. I can share any details / dump any runtime data if needed. Thanks, Al