Thread (8 messages) flat view 8 messages, 2 authors, 9d ago

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