Re: [PATCH v2] ip6_tunnel: Correct tos value in collect_md mode

[Daniel Borkmann]

On 06/15/2017 05:54 AM, Peter Dawson wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 10:30:29 +0800
> Haishuang Yan <yanhaishuang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Same as ip_gre, geneve and vxlan, use key->tos as tos value.
> >
> > CC: Peter Dawson <petedaws@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: 0e9a709560db ("ip6_tunnel, ip6_gre: fix setting of DSCP on
> > encapsulated packetsâ)
> > Suggested-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Haishuang Yan <yanhaishuang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ---
> > Changes since v2:
> >    * Add fixes information
> >    * mask key->tos with RT_TOS() suggested by Daniel
> > ---
> >   net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c | 4 ++--
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c
> > index ef99d59..6400726 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_tunnel.c
> > @@ -1249,7 +1249,7 @@ int ip6_tnl_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev, __u8 dsfield,
> >   		fl6.flowi6_proto = IPPROTO_IPIP;
> >   		fl6.daddr = key->u.ipv6.dst;
> >   		fl6.flowlabel = key->label;
> > -		dsfield = ip6_tclass(key->label);
> > +		dsfield =  RT_TOS(key->tos);
> >   	} else {
> >   		if (!(t->parms.flags & IP6_TNL_F_IGN_ENCAP_LIMIT))
> >   			encap_limit = t->parms.encap_limit;
> > @@ -1320,7 +1320,7 @@ int ip6_tnl_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev, __u8 dsfield,
> >   		fl6.flowi6_proto = IPPROTO_IPV6;
> >   		fl6.daddr = key->u.ipv6.dst;
> >   		fl6.flowlabel = key->label;
> > -		dsfield = ip6_tclass(key->label);
> > +		dsfield = RT_TOS(key->tos);
> >   	} else {
> >   		offset = ip6_tnl_parse_tlv_enc_lim(skb, skb_network_header(skb));
> >   		/* ip6_tnl_parse_tlv_enc_lim() might have reallocated skb->head */
>
> I don't think it is correct to apply RT_TOS
>
> Here is my understanding based on the RFCs.
>
> IPv4/6 Header:0 |0 1 2 3 |0 1 2 3 |0 1 2 3 |0 1 2 3 |
> RFC2460(IPv6)   |Version | Traffic Class   |        |
> RFC2474(IPv6)   |Version | DSCP        |ECN|        |
> RFC2474(IPv4)   |Version |  IHL   |    DSCP     |ECN|
> RFC1349(IPv4)   |Version |  IHL   | PREC |  TOS   |X|
> RFC791 (IPv4)   |Version |  IHL   |      TOS        |
>
> u8 key->tos stores the full 8bits of Traffic class from an IPv6 header and;
> u8 key->tos stores the full 8bits of TOS(RFC791) from an IPv4 header
> u8 ip6_tclass will return the full 8bits of Traffic Class from an IPv6 flowlabel
>
> RT_TOS will return the RFC1349 4bit TOS field.
>
> Applying RT_TOS to a key->tos will result in lost information and the inclusion of 1 bit of ECN if the original field was a DSCP+ECN.
>
> Based on this understanding of the RFCs (but not years of experience) and since RFC1349 has been obsoleted by RFC2474 I think the use of RT_TOS should be deprecated.
>
> This being said, dsfield = ip6_tclass(key->label) = key->tos isn't fully correct either because the result will contain the ECN bits as well as the DSCP.
>
> I agree that code should be consistent, but not where there is a potential issue.

Yeah, you're right. Looks like initial dsfield = key->tos diff was
the better choice then, sorry for my confusing comment.

For example, bpf_skb_set_tunnel_key() helper that populates the collect
metadata as one user of this infra masks the key->label so that it really
only holds the label meaning previous dsfield = ip6_tclass(key->label)
will always be 0 in that case unlike key->tos that actually gets populated
and would propagate it.