From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>
To: Fan Du <fan.du@windriver.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@secunet.com>,
kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, jmorris@namei.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: split rt_genid for ipv4 and ipv6
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 22:40:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51ED98C3.8050108@6wind.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51ECC682.1030409@windriver.com>
Le 22/07/2013 07:43, Fan Du a écrit :
> Adding IPsec and other IPv4/IPv6 maintainers in the list.
>
> On 2013年07月19日 17:33, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Fan Du<fan.du@windriver.com>
>> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 15:50:20 +0800
>>
>>> The original commit is targeted for XFRM policy inserting/removing,
>>> but it uses net genid shared by both IPv4 and IPv6, the side effect is
>>> add/delete IPv4 address will invalidate IPv6 dst in all.
>>>
>>> We *do* need to bump genid when add/delete IPv6 address in scenario I
>>> described here: http://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg243398.html,
>>> but definitely not from add/delete IPv4 address. Moreover test shows
>>> that DCCP still push thousands of packets on wire after delete its
>>> IPv6
>>> address in the same scenario I describe before.
>>>
>>> The impulse to bump genid for IPv6 is much more stronger after this
>>> commit even do it unintentionally.
>>
>> If you really think it will help, and it will still handle the IPSEC
>> case, you can make a seperate genid for ipv4 and ipv6 but that might not
>> work out so cleanly.
>>
>
> At least let me give it a try. Any comments would be truly welcome.
>
>
> From c79215d64038d62340d77c6ac070d8bb479b2f89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Fan Du <fan.du@windriver.com>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:31:56 +0800
> Subject: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: split rt_genid for ipv4 and ipv6
>
> Current net name space has only one genid for both IPv4 and IPv6, it has below
> drawbacks:
>
> - Add/delete an IPv4 address will invalidate all IPv6 routing table entries.
> - Insert/remove XFRM policy will also invalidate both IPv4/IPv6 routing table
> entries
> even when the policy is only applied for one address family.
>
> Thus, this patch attempt to split one genid for two to cater for IPv4 and IPv6
> separately
> in a fine granularity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fan Du <fan.du@windriver.com>
> ---
> include/net/net_namespace.h | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> net/ipv4/route.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> net/ipv6/af_inet6.c | 1 +
> net/ipv6/route.c | 4 ++--
> net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 8 +++++++-
> 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/net/net_namespace.h b/include/net/net_namespace.h
> index 84e37b1..a08e312 100644
> --- a/include/net/net_namespace.h
> +++ b/include/net/net_namespace.h
> @@ -119,8 +119,11 @@ struct net {
> struct netns_ipvs *ipvs;
> #endif
> struct sock *diag_nlsk;
> - atomic_t rt_genid;
> atomic_t fnhe_genid;
> + atomic_t rt_genid_ipv4;
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)
> + atomic_t rt_genid_ipv6;
> +#endif
> };
Why not putting these new fields in 'struct netns_ipv4' and 'struct netns_ipv6'?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-22 20:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-18 3:22 [DISCUSSION] rt6i_genid Fan Du
2013-07-18 9:13 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2013-07-18 9:28 ` Fan Du
2013-07-18 15:12 ` Nicolas Dichtel
2013-07-19 0:01 ` Fan Du
2013-07-19 3:18 ` David Miller
2013-07-19 3:28 ` Fan Du
2013-07-19 3:31 ` David Miller
2013-07-19 7:50 ` Fan Du
2013-07-19 9:33 ` David Miller
2013-07-22 5:43 ` [RFC PATCH net-next] net: split rt_genid for ipv4 and ipv6 Fan Du
2013-07-22 10:53 ` Steffen Klassert
2013-07-22 20:40 ` Nicolas Dichtel [this message]
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=51ED98C3.8050108@6wind.com \
--to=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=fan.du@windriver.com \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=steffen.klassert@secunet.com \
--cc=yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org \
/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).