Re: [PATCH net v2 2/2] net: ipv6: Clamp to IP6_MAX_MTU in ip6_dst_mtu_maybe_forward
From: Alice Mikityanska <hidden>
Date: 2026-08-17 18:28:14
Also in:
linux-kselftest
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026, at 23:25, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
Alice Mikityanska wrote:quoted
From: Alice Mikityanska <redacted> Commit 427faee167bc ("net: ipv6: introduce ip6_dst_mtu_maybe_forward") dropped the IP6_MAX_MTU clamp that used to be present in ip6_mtu(). A similar IPv4 commit ac6627a28dbf ("net: ipv4: Consolidate ipv4_mtu and ip_dst_mtu_maybe_forward") preserves the IP_MAX_MTU clamp. Restore the upper bound in the IPv6 flow to avoid potential 16-bit overflows in forwarding paths. Fixes: 427faee167bc ("net: ipv6: introduce ip6_dst_mtu_maybe_forward") Signed-off-by: Alice Mikityanska <redacted> Suggested-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>Reviewed-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@google.com>quoted
--- include/net/ip6_route.h | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)diff --git a/include/net/ip6_route.h b/include/net/ip6_route.h index 09ffe0f13ce7..fb59a5885faa 100644 --- a/include/net/ip6_route.h +++ b/include/net/ip6_route.h@@ -382,6 +382,8 @@ static inline unsigned int ip6_dst_mtu_maybe_forward(const struct dst_entry *dst rcu_read_unlock(); out: + mtu = min_t(unsigned int, mtu, IP6_MAX_MTU); + return mtu - lwtunnel_headroom(dst->lwtstate, mtu); }It appears IPv4 only clamps device MTU, not route MTU: mtu = dst_metric_raw(dst, RTAX_MTU); if (!mtu) mtu = min(READ_ONCE(dst->dev->mtu), IP_MAX_MTU);
This is some old code from v5.14, it changed in commit ac6627a28dbf
("net: ipv4: Consolidate ipv4_mtu and ip_dst_mtu_maybe_forward"), and
IPv4 clamps MTU in both cases since then.
I don't think that was necessarily intentional. Perhaps route MTU itself is already bounds checked on configuration. The device MTU min() was added after a syzbot report, in commit c780a049f9b.
This commit merely adds READ_ONCE to the existing min.
Current IPv6 proposal is arguably more robust, covering both. There just remains a difference between IPv4 and IPv6 code paths.
So, looking at the fresh checkout, it seems that my patch covers the difference, right?