netdev.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
To: David Ahern <dsahern@gmail.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>,
	davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv4: Revert removal of rt_uses_gateway
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 01:02:45 +0300 (EEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.1909172339130.2649@ja.home.ssi.bg> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9afca894-3807-632a-529b-7ceee4227bcb@gmail.com>


	Hello,

On Tue, 17 Sep 2019, David Ahern wrote:

> On 9/17/19 12:50 PM, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > 
> > 	Looks good to me, thanks!
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
> > 
> 
> BTW, do you have any tests for the rt_uses_gateway paths - showing why
> it is needed?

	No special tests.

> All of the pmtu, redirect, fib tests, etc worked fine without the
> special flag. Sure, the 'ip ro get' had extra data; it seems like that
> could be handled.

	I'll explain. In the period before the route cache
was removed in 3.6, there were two fields: rt_dst and rt_gateway.
For targets on LAN both contained the target. For targets via
gateway (nh_gw), rt_dst still stores the target but rt_gateway
stored the nh_gw. In short, rt_gateway always contained the
next hop IP for neigh resolving.

	In 3.6, rt_dst was removed and only rt_gateway remained
to store nh_gw. As fnhe_rth/nh_pcpu_rth_output were used to
cache the output route, rt_gateway can not contain any IP
because the route can be used for any target on the LAN.
This is true even now, rt_gateway is 0 for cached routes
that are not DST_HOST, i.e. not for single target IP.

	Why this matters? There are users such as IPVS,
TEE, raw.c (IP_HDRINCL) that use FLOWI_FLAG_KNOWN_NH to
request route with rt_gateway != 0 to be returned, i.e.
they want rt_gateway to store a next hop IP for neigh
resolving but to put different IP in iph->daddr. This is
honoured by rt_nexthop(), it prefers rt_gateway before the
iph->daddr. With this FLOWI flag the routing will avoid
returning routes with rt_gateway = 0 (cached in NH), instead
it will allocate DST_HOST route which can safely hold IP
in rt_gateway.

	So, in 3.7 commit 155e8336c373 ("ipv4: introduce
rt_uses_gateway") was created to restore the knowledge
that rt_dst != rt_gateway means route via GW and also
commit c92b96553a80 ("ipv4: Add FLOWI_FLAG_KNOWN_NH")
to make sure packets are routed by requested next hop and
not by iph->daddr.

	You see the places that need to know if rt_gateway
contains nh_gw (via GW) or just a requested next hop (when
nh_gw is 0). It matters for cases where strict source routes
should be on connected network.

	In simple tests things are working without rt_uses_gateway
flag because it is a corner case to see above cases combined
with strict source routing or MTU locking. Not sure if we can
use some trick to support it differently without such flag.

Regards

--
Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>

  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-17 22:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-17 17:39 [PATCH net] ipv4: Revert removal of rt_uses_gateway David Ahern
2019-09-17 18:50 ` Julian Anastasov
2019-09-17 18:55   ` David Ahern
2019-09-17 22:02     ` Julian Anastasov [this message]
2019-09-21  1:30 ` Jakub Kicinski
2019-09-21  1:32   ` David Ahern

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=alpine.LFD.2.21.1909172339130.2649@ja.home.ssi.bg \
    --to=ja@ssi.bg \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=dsahern@gmail.com \
    --cc=dsahern@kernel.org \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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).