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

[äæå]

> On 16 Jun 2017, at 10:44 PM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
Okay, I will change the commit back to initial version, thanks everyone.