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=-5.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 900CDC2D0A8 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 17:03:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D0620C09 for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 17:03:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.b="KE0td2ak" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726802AbgIWRDF (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:03:05 -0400 Received: from mail.efficios.com ([167.114.26.124]:51846 "EHLO mail.efficios.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726779AbgIWRDE (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:03:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B4B22CBF57; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:03:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id UtFJwFqFqI9A; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A562CC076; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:03:03 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com D4A562CC076 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=efficios.com; s=default; t=1600880583; bh=F8UBWvDOoZ47q2doq5ED60G9uh3N3lilVQ/T/onXtlA=; h=From:To:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version; b=KE0td2akdrkYy0OjNq2iKGyXrqi78FpRXBhHLTd8mAZt9Ij59DtIXN7m96NjBoRS8 JTFc/kvFdann7gDSNQzKv70dUym2lp2iQ6C7TbU+AyogVDb3MXcbb8MOPftj+TsgiU QDg1xE8Axke7sJpBh/rKwYBYy4c/1jLS292H642gqKLKAcaf3Ga8NFJgo89tjew8ND +AGWuoRqlndZU+HF+JT9c5W6xB43pOxEk383yofag4PxRUiKqkKqoc/kIL2o1GJMLb ZA5jE6D9YtG1IjU2w4I1rw24hx92Geh9Y68o+brM5ZaJZDuDAwnKSNkchTWSCoc+u2 BzLjedffI0EwA== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at efficios.com Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id 6tPWE3jsjytB; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.10.0.55] (96-127-212-112.qc.cable.ebox.net [96.127.212.112]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B45ED2CC1C5; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:03:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] l3mdev icmp error route lookup fixes From: Michael Jeanson To: David Ahern , Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: David , netdev , linux-kernel References: <20200918181801.2571-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <390b230b-629b-7f96-e7c9-b28f8b592102@gmail.com> <1453768496.36855.1600713879236.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1383129694.37216.1600716821449.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <1135414696.37989.1600782730509.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <4456259a-979a-7821-ef3d-aed5d330ed2b@gmail.com> <730d8a09-7d3b-1033-4131-520dc42e8855@efficios.com> Message-ID: <47175ae8-e7e8-473c-5103-90bf444db16c@efficios.com> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:03:03 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <730d8a09-7d3b-1033-4131-520dc42e8855@efficios.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2020-09-23 12 h 04, Michael Jeanson wrote: >> It should work without asymmetric routing; adding the return route to >> the second vrf as I mentioned above fixes the FRAG_NEEDED problem. It >> should work for TTL as well. >> >> Adding a second pass on the tests with the return through r2 is fine, >> but add a first pass for the more typical case. > > Hi, > > Before writing new tests I just want to make sure we are trying to fix > the same issue. If I add a return route to the red VRF then we don't > need this patchset because whether the ICMP error are routed using the > table from the source or destination interface they will reach the > source host. > > The issue for which this patchset was sent only happens when the > destination interface's VRF doesn't have a route back to the source > host. I guess we might question if this is actually a bug or not. > > So the question really is, when a packet is forwarded between VRFs > through route leaking and an icmp error is generated, which table should > be used for the route lookup? And does it depend on the type of icmp > error? (e.g. TTL=1 happens before forwarding, but fragmentation needed > happens after when on the destination interface) As a side note, I don't mind reworking the tests as you requested even if the patchset as a whole ends up not being needed and if you think they are still useful. I just wanted to make sure we understood each other. Cheers, Michael