From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684AEC4363D for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 07:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3AB206CA for ; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 07:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="GTzEyYxV" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725648AbgJCHjM (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2020 03:39:12 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43748 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725446AbgJCHjM (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2020 03:39:12 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-x441.google.com (mail-wr1-x441.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::441]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 507F2C0613D0; Sat, 3 Oct 2020 00:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x441.google.com with SMTP id o5so4146358wrn.13; Sat, 03 Oct 2020 00:39:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9eDbUUTM4/Se82Nj6NAcUtOVBY0yBb+Lgqq10mMozO8=; b=GTzEyYxVD+/KcPpeARr1vRRmfin5Mp7ZnGNdB+VhkZt4OFvkOZNI24McZhTVJiTUah 5CQ6kiIqsk9iuJt1EzGK8JYGNM82jLEKoCALTWEWEgepEtNw4qz9c9q98w30t3SbXwM/ ii5321Ok4yM9wVC+4BIcjzD8yMGZbdksY7jyrNnVGLHS9QjTGgbBXPRsEnyGglP9f1fF GSAIFqPs5A/NAf/mfEV1666zWrIwTeM9DqcFURM/1ANyHQovkxNzp0fYaRjL1Mawr9bl GbzjrHRKWuU46NMdpWfCeBkDw7dR/PjaK56A9SrPekjcfQxMAhhF9l8NRLzZd/UtJh6e HuwQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9eDbUUTM4/Se82Nj6NAcUtOVBY0yBb+Lgqq10mMozO8=; b=HRv8yp89LIqDYbNWpaPs3TeVLmJJuDAW2OFZ3085rIBeglNProCxdan3Xu9k7IFoVL Hcl2yL1OzIlrg3OoK531lNKqHb/94h8UmCjqmlyVfM/ZWAtzvrCDQ4cB8vyTq9M1Uut1 alSWrCwfLIRU4o8KfaSMJoiaHWF8hizwqB4k3OrorD4rdHhzL5d6UKFnEh9uBciD/Cff qsIUUwmfWRV0sfiG6MWUse6O1shEGJUxx9ZhtfCkxA79V5PwhkLQe7E/FeczLhsWio1v rD0xu3GjWfpJWROOI5FeCbIp87xRtrcFuOH5QvtSvTvLhafk+wNUPsfpxIR5YH7TNWC6 3YFw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530gvCjAkp2IXUJUZ4QU3SuAJp+smesqxv+qlCR2x0jGKKsSu10n +KeWDzRdre7bh5VlssLFmEvgnCmqhcu5gIhG9Opl1HE6+NY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy26JcArIjbQXvKK9tpViuR71XLiNCiut00I3+IkUUIjMPrpEiHFLnj2K5AdQjRYXpG9yfn7C6ZZjTvumXh9v8= X-Received: by 2002:adf:82ce:: with SMTP id 72mr6922829wrc.404.1601710750858; Sat, 03 Oct 2020 00:39:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <7ff312f910ada8893fa4db57d341c628d1122640.1601387231.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> <20201003040729.GF70998@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20201003040729.GF70998@localhost.localdomain> From: Xin Long Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2020 15:54:37 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 11/15] sctp: add udphdr to overhead when udp_port is set To: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner Cc: network dev , linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman , Michael Tuexen , Tom Herbert , davem Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20201003075437.9nisxxKbYIInXla_NGsAq47b4cDSA5hcbQHR8LDkU2k@z> On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 12:07 PM Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 09:49:03PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > > sctp_mtu_payload() is for calculating the frag size before making > > chunks from a msg. So we should only add udphdr size to overhead > > when udp socks are listening, as only then sctp can handling the > "handle" ^^^^ right. :D > > incoming sctp over udp packets and outgoing sctp over udp packets > > will be possible. > > > > Note that we can't do this according to transport->encap_port, as > > different transports may be set to different values, while the > > chunks were made before choosing the transport, we could not be > > able to meet all rfc6951#section-5.6 requires. > > I don't follow this last part. I guess you're referring to the fact > that it won't grow back the PMTU if it is not encapsulating anymore. > If that's it, then changelog should be different here. As is, it > seems it is not abiding by the RFC, but it is, as that's a 'SHOULD'. > > Maybe s/requires\.$/recommends./ ? Yes, it's a "should". What the code can only do is "the Path MTU SHOULD be increased by the size of the UDP header" when udp listening port is disabled.