From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
To: Jesse Gross <jesse@nicira.com>
Cc: netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@nicira.com>,
Jiri Benc <jbenc@redhat.com>, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFT v3] geneve: implement support for IPv6-based tunnels
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:03:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151001200355.GF3086@tuxdriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEP_g=9g=Bt09+Kf9CWaSuhPFhUVXcesW28ksq+8b5hQwzf6Vw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 09:26:59AM -0700, Jesse Gross wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 11:34 AM, John W. Linville
> <linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/geneve.c b/drivers/net/geneve.c
> > index 8f5c02eed47d..291d3d7754a8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/geneve.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/geneve.c
> > +#define GENEVE_F_IPV6 0x00000001
>
> I wasn't sure why we needed this flag. Can't we just look at the
> remote address family?
Yeah, I had grander plans... :-) I think it can be removed.
> > -static void geneve_sock_release(struct geneve_sock *gs)
> > +static void __geneve_sock_release(struct geneve_sock *gs)
> > {
> > if (--gs->refcnt)
> > return;
>
> Do we need a check for NULL first here?
Sure.
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
> > +static int geneve6_build_skb(struct dst_entry *dst, struct sk_buff *skb,
> > + __be16 tun_flags, u8 vni[3], u8 opt_len, u8 *opt,
> > + bool csum, bool xnet)
> > +{
> > + struct genevehdr *gnvh;
> > + int min_headroom;
> > + int err;
> > +
> > + skb_scrub_packet(skb, xnet);
>
> Is there a reason why this applies to only IPv6? It seems like it
> would be common
The dst vs rt thing was the motivator. It probably could be refactored
to share some code between geneve_build_skb and geneve6_build_skb.
> > +static struct dst_entry *geneve_get_dst(struct sk_buff *skb,
>
> It might be worth clarifying this name - it wasn't immediately obvious
> to me the difference between geneve_get_rt() and geneve_get_dst() is
> IPv4 vs. IPv6.
geneve_get_v4_rt and geneve_get_v6_dst?
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
> > +static netdev_tx_t geneve6_xmit_skb(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev,
> > + struct ip_tunnel_info *info)
> [...]
> > + dst = geneve_get_dst(skb, dev, &fl6, info);
> > + if (IS_ERR(dst)) {
> > + netdev_dbg(dev, "no route to %pI6\n", &fl6.daddr);
> > + dev->stats.tx_carrier_errors++;
> > + goto tx_error;
> > + }
>
> It looks like we double log/count this error (although this also
> appears to be a problem for IPv4).
Indeed. I'll try to fix/refactor that a bit...
> > + err = udp_tunnel6_xmit_skb(dst, gs6->sock->sk, skb, dev,
> > + &fl6.saddr, &fl6.daddr, 0, ttl,
> > + sport, geneve->dst_port, !udp_csum);
>
> It seems like TOS is not handled here?
There is no tos parameter for udp_tunnel6_xmit_skb. Is there some
other way to inject it? Is there a mapping to priority (i.e. the
0 parameter)?
> > @@ -823,9 +1095,11 @@ static int geneve_configure(struct net *net, struct net_device *dev,
> > int err;
> >
> > if (metadata) {
> > - if (rem_addr || vni || tos || ttl)
> > + if (remote != &geneve_remote_unspec || vni || tos || ttl)
> > return -EINVAL;
>
> I think this will fail in the non-compat metadata case. The remote
> that is passed in will be a zeroed copy on the stack, so the address
> won't match the static version. I believe the check should be for
> AF_UNSPEC instead.
It is actually checking the pointer value against the address of
that static data structure, which is only reference through the
geneve_dev_create_fb path to calling geneve_configure. Knowing that
are you still troubled by it?
John
P.S. I may not respond/repost for a while due to some travel during
the next week...
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-01 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-24 18:34 [RFT] geneve: implement support for IPv6-based tunnels John W. Linville
2015-09-24 18:39 ` [PATCH iproute2] geneve: add support for IPv6 link partners John W. Linville
2015-11-24 0:23 ` Stephen Hemminger
2015-09-25 12:08 ` [RFT] geneve: implement support for IPv6-based tunnels Jiri Benc
2015-09-28 19:20 ` John W. Linville
2015-09-29 16:10 ` Jiri Benc
2015-09-30 17:04 ` [RFT v2] " John W. Linville
2015-09-30 18:07 ` kbuild test robot
2015-09-30 18:34 ` [RFT v3] " John W. Linville
2015-10-01 1:55 ` kbuild test robot
2015-10-01 15:38 ` Jiri Benc
2015-10-01 16:26 ` Jesse Gross
2015-10-01 20:03 ` John W. Linville [this message]
2015-10-01 21:07 ` Jesse Gross
2015-10-20 15:11 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] " John W. Linville
2015-10-20 15:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] geneve: handle ipv6 priority like ipv4 tos John W. Linville
2015-10-21 5:13 ` Jesse Gross
2015-10-20 22:55 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] geneve: implement support for IPv6-based tunnels kbuild test robot
2015-10-21 1:52 ` YOSHIFUJI Hideaki/吉藤英明
2015-10-21 18:58 ` John W. Linville
2015-10-21 5:06 ` Jesse Gross
2015-10-22 19:45 ` [PATCH v5 " John W. Linville
2015-10-22 19:45 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] geneve: handle ipv6 priority like ipv4 tos John W. Linville
2015-10-23 4:48 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] geneve: implement support for IPv6-based tunnels YOSHIFUJI Hideaki
2015-10-23 13:38 ` John W. Linville
2015-10-23 14:40 ` [PATCH v6 " John W. Linville
2015-10-23 14:40 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] geneve: handle ipv6 priority like ipv4 tos John W. Linville
2015-10-26 4:08 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] geneve: implement support for IPv6-based tunnels Jesse Gross
2015-10-26 21:01 ` [PATCH v7 1/3] " John W. Linville
2015-10-26 21:01 ` [PATCH v7 2/3] geneve: handle ipv6 priority like ipv4 tos John W. Linville
2015-10-30 3:11 ` David Miller
2015-10-26 21:01 ` [PATCH v7 3/3] geneve: add IPv6 bits to geneve_fill_metadata_dst John W. Linville
2015-10-27 12:48 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2015-10-27 13:49 ` [PATCH v8 " John W. Linville
2015-10-27 14:24 ` Jesse Gross
2015-10-30 3:12 ` David Miller
2015-10-30 3:11 ` [PATCH v7 1/3] geneve: implement support for IPv6-based tunnels David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151001200355.GF3086@tuxdriver.com \
--to=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=jbenc@redhat.com \
--cc=jesse@nicira.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pshelar@nicira.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).