Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] udp: fixup csum for GSO receive slow path
flat view
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Date: 2021-03-24 14:38:13
On Tue, 2021-03-23 at 21:45 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:36 PM Paolo Abeni [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 09:18 -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:quoted
On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 1:01 PM Paolo Abeni [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
When looping back UDP GSO over UDP tunnel packets to an UDP socket, the individual packet csum is currently set to CSUM_NONE. That causes unexpected/wrong csum validation errors later in the UDP receive path. We could possibly addressing the issue with some additional check and csum mangling in the UDP tunnel code. Since the issue affects only this UDP receive slow path, let's set a suitable csum status there. Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> --- include/net/udp.h | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ net/ipv4/udp.c | 10 ++++++++++ net/ipv6/udp.c | 5 +++++ 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+)diff --git a/include/net/udp.h b/include/net/udp.h index d4d064c592328..007683eb3e113 100644 --- a/include/net/udp.h +++ b/include/net/udp.h@@ -515,6 +515,24 @@ static inline struct sk_buff *udp_rcv_segment(struct sock *sk, return segs; } +static inline void udp_post_segment_fix_csum(struct sk_buff *skb, int level) +{ + /* UDP-lite can't land here - no GRO */ + WARN_ON_ONCE(UDP_SKB_CB(skb)->partial_cov); + + /* GRO already validated the csum up to 'level', and we just + * consumed one header, update the skb accordingly + */ + UDP_SKB_CB(skb)->cscov = skb->len; + if (level) { + skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY; + skb->csum_level = 0; + } else { + skb->ip_summed = CHECKSUM_NONE; + skb->csum_valid = 1; + }why does this function also update these fields for non-tunneled packets? the commit only describes an issue with tunneled packets.quoted
+} + #ifdef CONFIG_BPF_SYSCALL struct sk_psock; struct proto *udp_bpf_get_proto(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock);diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c index 4a0478b17243a..ff54135c51ffa 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c@@ -2168,6 +2168,7 @@ static int udp_queue_rcv_one_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) static int udp_queue_rcv_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) { struct sk_buff *next, *segs; + int csum_level; int ret; if (likely(!udp_unexpected_gso(sk, skb)))@@ -2175,9 +2176,18 @@ static int udp_queue_rcv_skb(struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct udp_skb_cb) > SKB_GSO_CB_OFFSET); __skb_push(skb, -skb_mac_offset(skb)); + csum_level = !!(skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_type & + (SKB_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL | SKB_GSO_UDP_TUNNEL_CSUM)); segs = udp_rcv_segment(sk, skb, true); skb_list_walk_safe(segs, skb, next) { __skb_pull(skb, skb_transport_offset(skb)); + + /* UDP GSO packets looped back after adding UDP encap land here with CHECKSUM none, + * instead of adding another check in the tunnel fastpath, we can force valid + * csums here (packets are locally generated). + * Additionally fixup the UDP CB + */ + udp_post_segment_fix_csum(skb, csum_level);How does this code differentiates locally generated packets with udp tunnel headers from packets arriving from the wire, for which the inner checksum may be incorrect?First thing first, thank you for the detailed review. Digesting all the comments will take time, so please excuse for some latency.Apologies for my own delayed response. I also need to take time to understand the existing code and diffs :) And have a few questions.quoted
I'll try to reply to both your question here because the replies are related. My understanding is that UDP GRO, when processing UDP over UDP trafficThis is a UDP GSO packet egress packet that was further encapsulated with a GSO_UDP_TUNNEL on egress, then looped to the ingress path? Then in the ingress path it has traversed the GRO layer. Is this veth with XDP? That seems unlikely for GSO packets. But there aren't many paths that will loop a packet through napi_gro_receive or napi_gro_frags.
This patch addresses the following scenario: sk ->vxlan -> veth -> (xdp in use, TSO disabled, GRO on) -> veth -> vxlan -> sk What I meant here is that the issue is not visible with: (baremetal, NETIF_F_GRO_UDP_FWD | NETIF_F_GRO_FRAGLIST enabled -> vxlan -> sk
quoted
with the appropriate features bit set, will validate the checksum for both the inner and the outer header - udp{4,6}_gro_receive will be traversed twice, the fist one for the outer header, the 2nd for the inner.GRO will validate multiple levels of checksums with CHECKSUM_COMPLETE. It can only validate the outer checksum with CHECKSUM_UNNECESSARY, I believe?
I possibly miss some bits here ?!? AFAICS: udp4_gro_receive() -> skb_gro_checksum_validate_zero_check() -> __skb_gro_checksum_validate -> (if not already valid) __skb_gro_checksum_validate_complete() -> (if not CHECKSUM_COMPLETE) __skb_gro_checksum_complete() the latter will validate the UDP checksum at the current nesting level (and set the csum-related bits in the GRO skb cb to the same status as CHECKSUM_COMPLETE) When processing UDP over UDP tunnel packet, the gro call chain will be: [l2/l3 GRO] -> udp4_gro_receive (validate outher header csum) -> udp_sk(sk)->gro_receive -> [other gro layers] -> udp4_gro_receive (validate inner header csum) -> ...
As for looped packets with CHECKSUM_PARTIAL: we definitely have found bugs in that path before. I think it's fine to set csum_valid on any packets that can unambiguously be identified as such. Hence the detailed questions above on which exact packets this code is targeting, so that there are not accidental false positives that look the same but have a different ip_summed.
I see this change is controversial. Since the addressed scenario is
really a corner case, a simpler alternative would be
replacing udp_post_segment_fix_csum with:
static inline void udp_post_segment_fix_cb(struct sk_buff *skb, int level)
{
/* UDP-lite can't land here - no GRO */
WARN_ON_ONCE(UDP_SKB_CB(skb)->partial_cov);
/* UDP CB mirrors the GSO packet, we must re-init it */
UDP_SKB_CB(skb)->cscov = skb->len;
}
the downside will be an additional, later, unneeded csum validation for the
sk ->vxlan -> veth -> (xdp in use, TSO disabled, GRO on) -> veth -> vxlan -> sk
scenario. WDYT?
Thanks!
Paolo