RE: [PATCH bpf] bpf: check for data_len before upgrading mss when 6 to 4

[Dongseok Yi]

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 01:38:41PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:11 PM Dongseok Yi <dseok.yi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 09:46:25AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:19 AM Willem de Bruijn
> > > <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > That generates TCP packets with different MSS within the same stream.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My suggestion remains to just not change MSS at all. But this has to
> > > > > > be a new flag to avoid changing established behavior.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand why the mss size should be kept in GSO step. Will
> > > > > there be any issue with different mss?
> > > >
> > > > This issue has come up before and that has been the feedback from
> > > > TCP experts at one point.
> > > >
> > > > > In general, upgrading mss make sense when 6 to 4. The new flag would be
> > > > > set by user to not change mss. What happened if user does not set the
> > > > > flag? I still think we should fix the issue with a general approach. Or
> > > > > can we remove the skb_increase_gso_size line?
> > > >
> > > > Admins that insert such BPF packets should be aware of these issues.
> > > > And likely be using clamping. This is a known issue.
> > > >
> > > > We arrived that the flag approach in bpf_skb_net_shrink. Extending
> > > > that  to bpf_skb_change_proto would be consistent.
> > >
> > > As for more generic approach: does downgrading to non-TSO by clearing
> > > gso_size work for this edge case?
> >
> > It can hit __skb_linearize in validate_xmit_skb and frags will be
> > copied to a linear part. The linear part size can exceed the MTU of
> > skb->dev unexpectedly.
> 
> When does skb_needs_linearize return true here (besides lack of
> scatter-gather support, which would also preclude TSO)?

As I know not every netdev support NETIF_F_SG. TSO requires SG.

    /* TSO requires that SG is present as well. */
    if ((features & NETIF_F_ALL_TSO) && !(features & NETIF_F_SG)) {
        netdev_dbg(dev, "Dropping TSO features since no SG feature.\n");
        features &= ~NETIF_F_ALL_TSO;
    }

> 
> > I will make another patch with the flag approach.
> >