Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1615535 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] New kernel function to get IP overhead on a socket.

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] New kernel function to get IP overhead  on a socket. "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 22:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] New kernel function to get IP overhead  on a socket. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-04-03 22:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] New kernel function to get IP overhead  on a socket. David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> - 2017-04-04 04:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] New kernel function to get IP overhead  on a socket. "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 04:20 +0200

#1615535 — Re: [PATCH net-next v4 1/2] New kernel function to get IP overhead on a socket.

Hi James, Dave,

Sorry for the delay (was away), please see inline:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, James Chapman wrote:

> On 24/03/17 01:51, R. Parameswaran wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > Please see inline:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, David Miller wrote:
> >
> >> From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@gmail.com>
> >> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:59:13 -0700 (PDT)
> >>
> >>> A new function, kernel_sock_ip_overhead(), is provided
> >>> to calculate the cumulative overhead imposed by the IP
> >>> Header and IP options, if any, on a socket's payload.
> >>> The new function returns an overhead of zero for sockets
> >>> that do not belong to the IPv4 or IPv6 address families.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: R. Parameswaran <rparames@brocade.com>
> >> Just use the IPv4/IPv6 header size for now, just like the VXLAN
> >> driver does.
> >>
> > Actually, that's how the original posting was - it was changed in 
> > response to a review comment from James Chapman requesting the IP
> > Options overhead to be factored in and for this to be calculated in
> > a new standalone function that can be reused in other situations. 
> > The review comment makes sense to me - the kernel seems to do a 
> > good job of accounting for the cumulative size of IP Options and
> > if the information is available, it may make sense to factor it in.
> >
> > I guess you are concerned about compatibility between vxlan and
> > L2TP? There may be one difference  - the socket for vxlan
> > appears to be opened/controlled entirely within kernel code (seems
> > to call udp_sock_create() which does not appear to turn on any options), 
> > but in the case of L2TP, it is possible for the tunnel socket to be 
> > opened from user space, if a user space control plane daemon is running.
> > Regardless of how user space daemons are written right now, it is 
> > possible in theory for the user space code to turn on options on the 
> > L2TP tunnel socket. So it seems that IP options might be enabled on the 
> > L2TP socket, but are probably unlikely on the vxlan socket? 
> >
> > I'd suggest giving this a few days for James to respond. 
> > At that time if there is agreement that we don't need to factor options, 
> > I can rework it.
> 
> The reason I suggested factoring in IP options here is because L2TP
> tunnel sockets can be opened by userspace daemons. When an L2TP control
> plane is used, the L2TP daemon opens the tunnel socket. When no control
> plane is used, L2TP connections are manually configured, usually by ip
> l2tp commands, and the tunnel socket is created by the kernel.
> 
> For sockets created by userspace, the L2TP daemon could derive the
> cumulative size of all IP options that it sets and use that to set the
> L2TP session's MTU. Setting an MTU when establishing L2TP connections
> overrides the kernel's own default MTU calculations anyway. But the L2TP
> packet header overhead depends on several other L2TP-specific options,
> e.g. cookie size and the kernel already takes these into account when
> calculating MTU. If IP options are ignored, we'd have the situation
> where the default MTU value avoids fragmentation but only if certain IP
> options are not enabled on the tunnel socket.
> 
> For L2TP, I'd prefer that the kernel takes IP options into account. If a
> function were added to the kernel to return the IP header overhead of an
> IP socket, initially for L2TP, I figured it might be useful for other
> tunnel protocols too, hence I suggested it was added as a generic
> function. Maybe that was a mistake. If instead this function is renamed
> and made L2TP-private, that would be ok for me.
> 
> James
> 

Can I take this to mean that we do need to factor in IP options in 
the L2TP device MTU setup (i.e approach in the posted patch is okay)? 

If yes, please let me know if I can keep the socket IP option overhead 
calculations in a generic function, or it would be better to move it back into 
L2TP code? 

There are a couple of krobot warnings which I can fix on the next upload. 

thanks,

Ramkumar

> 
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615545

From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT)

> Can I take this to mean that we do need to factor in IP options in 
> the L2TP device MTU setup (i.e approach in the posted patch is okay)? 
> 
> If yes, please let me know if I can keep the socket IP option overhead 
> calculations in a generic function, or it would be better to move it back into 
> L2TP code? 

If the user creates and maintains this UDP socket, then yes we have to
account for potential IP options.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615654

From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 19:12:20 -0700 (PDT)

> 
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> Please see inline:
> 
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, David Miller wrote:
> 
>> From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
>> 
>> > Can I take this to mean that we do need to factor in IP options in 
>> > the L2TP device MTU setup (i.e approach in the posted patch is okay)? 
>> > 
>> > If yes, please let me know if I can keep the socket IP option overhead 
>> > calculations in a generic function, or it would be better to move it back into 
>> > L2TP code? 
>> 
>> If the user creates and maintains this UDP socket, then yes we have to
>> account for potential IP options.
>> 
> 
> Can I take this to mean that the patch in its present form is 
> acceptable (patch currently accounts for IP options on the socket)? 
> Please let me know if any further change is needed (I'll clean up the 
> krobot reported errors after this).

Yes, please respin the patch with the krobot errors fixed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615659

Hi Dave,

Please see inline:

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, David Miller wrote:

> From: "R. Parameswaran" <parameswaran.r7@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 13:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> > Can I take this to mean that we do need to factor in IP options in 
> > the L2TP device MTU setup (i.e approach in the posted patch is okay)? 
> > 
> > If yes, please let me know if I can keep the socket IP option overhead 
> > calculations in a generic function, or it would be better to move it back into 
> > L2TP code? 
> 
> If the user creates and maintains this UDP socket, then yes we have to
> account for potential IP options.
> 

Can I take this to mean that the patch in its present form is 
acceptable (patch currently accounts for IP options on the socket)? 
Please let me know if any further change is needed (I'll clean up the 
krobot reported errors after this).

thanks,

Ramkumar

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web