Re: BUG_ON in skb_segment, after bpf_skb_change_proto was applied

[Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:03 PM Shmulik Ladkani <shmulik@metanetworks.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 12:23:54 -0400
> Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a lot more code change. Especially for stable fixes that need
> > to be backported, a smaller patch is preferable.
>
> Indeed. Thanks for the feedback.
>
> > My suggestion only tested the first frag_skb length. If a list can be
> > created where the first frag_skb is head_frag but a later one is not,
> > it will fail short. I kind of doubt that.
> >
> > By default skb_gro_receive builds GSO skbs that can be segmented
> > along the original gso_size boundaries. We have so far only observed
> > this issue when messing with gso_size.
>
> The rationale was based on inputs specified in 43170c4e0ba7, where a GRO
> skb has a fraglist with different amounts of payloads.
>
> > We can easily refine the test to fall back on to copying only if
> > skb_headlen(list_skb) != mss.
>
> I'm concerned this is too generic; innocent skbs may fall victim to our
> skb copy fallback. Probably those mentioned in 43170c4e0ba7.
>
> > Alternatively, only on SKB_GSO_DODGY is fine, too.
> >
> > I suggest we stick with the two-liner.
>
> OK.
> So lets refine your original codition, testing only the first
> frag_skb, but also ensuring SKB_GSO_DODGY *and* 'skb_headlen(list_skb) != mss'
> (we know existing code DOES work OK for unchanged gso_size, even if frags
> have linear, non head_frag, data).
>
> This hits the known, reproducable case of the mentioned BUG_ON, and is
> tightly scoped to that case.
>
> If that's agreed, I'll submit a proper patch.

Yep, that sounds good to me.