From: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
To: "Ananyev\, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com>
Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>, "dev\@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>,
Sunil Kumar Kori <skori@marvell.com>, "Burakov\,
Anatoly" <anatoly.burakov@intel.com>,
Chas Williams <chas3@att.com>, "Richardson\,
Bruce" <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
"David Marchand" <david.marchand@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] ip_frag: ensure minimum v4 fragmentation length
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 14:41:25 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7td08j9m0a.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB25491AD22EAFE666890FCA809AC30@BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> (Konstantin Ananyev's message of "Tue, 7 Apr 2020 14:14:34 +0000")
"Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> writes:
>>
>> "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev@intel.com> writes:
>>
>> >>
>> >> The IPv4 specification says that each fragment must at least the size of
>> >> an IP header plus 8 octets. When attempting to run ipfrag using a
>> >> smaller size, the fragment library will return successful completion,
>> >> even though it is a violation of RFC791 (and updates).
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Aaron Conole <aconole@redhat.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c | 6 ++++++
>> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
>> >> index 9e9f986cc5..4baaf6355c 100644
>> >> --- a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
>> >> +++ b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_fragmentation.c
>> >> @@ -76,6 +76,12 @@ rte_ipv4_fragment_packet(struct rte_mbuf *pkt_in,
>> >> uint16_t fragment_offset, flag_offset, frag_size;
>> >> uint16_t frag_bytes_remaining;
>> >>
>> >> + /*
>> >> + * Ensure the IP fragmentation size is at least iphdr length + 8 octets
>> >> + */
>> >> + if (unlikely(mtu_size < (sizeof(struct rte_ipv4_hdr) + 8*sizeof(char))))
>> >> + return -EINVAL;
>> >> +
>> >
>> > Same comment as for ipv6: ipv4 min MTU is 68B.
>>
>> I can change it. I suspected that if I went with 68 here and 1280 in
>> the v6 code, I would get pushback, but I should have just submitted it
>> that way to begin.
>>
>> > Why do we need extra checking here?
>>
>> These are error conditions to submit to fragmentation module. Someone
>> needs to do the check - either it is done in the application or the
>> library. If the library doesn't, and the application writer doesn't
>> know they must write these checks (it isn't documented anywhere), then
>> we get non compliant behavior. By putting it in the library, we can
>> clearly signal the application writer such a case has occurred.
>>
>> Should we not do error checking?
>
> It depends I think...
> In many data-path functions we skip parameter checking.
> These fragment() functions are data-path too.
> Agree, it is not stated clearly in these functions formal comments,
> as it should be.
I'll add documentation as another patch.
> After another thought - these functions are quite heavy-weighed anyway,
> so probably formal parameter checking, something like:
> if (pkt_in == NULL || pkts_out == NULL || pool_direct == NULL ||
> pool_indirect == NULL || mtu < MIN_MTU)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> wouldn't introduce any real slowdown.
Agreed.
> About more intense checking - like parsing all extension
> headers, etc. - I think it would be too much overhead.
> Again for that there is a special function that user can call directly:
> rte_ipv6_frag_get_ipv6_fragment_header
> (though its current implementation also checks only first extension header).
> So, I think we just need to document that it is a user responsibility to
> provide not fragmented yet packet, without any pre-fragment headers.
Makes sense. Then again, the v6 frag code will need to preserve many of
the headers anyway, so since we have to read them, maybe it makes
sense to do the check here anyway. WDYT?
> Konstantin
>
>>
>> >> /*
>> >> * Ensure the IP payload length of all fragments is aligned to a
>> >> * multiple of 8 bytes as per RFC791 section 2.3.
>> >> --
>> >> 2.25.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-07 18:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-31 16:07 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] ip_frag: add a unit test for fragmentation Aaron Conole
2020-03-31 16:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/4] ip_frag: ensure minimum v4 fragmentation length Aaron Conole
2020-03-31 16:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/4] ip_frag: ensure minimum v6 " Aaron Conole
2020-03-31 16:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 3/4] ip_frag: ipv6 fragments must not be resubmitted to fragmentation Aaron Conole
2020-03-31 16:07 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 4/4] ipfrag: add unit test case Aaron Conole
[not found] ` <20200331200715.13751-1-robot@bytheb.org>
2020-03-31 21:12 ` [dpdk-dev] |WARNING| pw67494 " Aaron Conole
2020-04-01 13:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] ip_frag: add a unit test for fragmentation Aaron Conole
2020-04-01 13:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 1/4] ip_frag: ensure minimum v4 fragmentation length Aaron Conole
2020-04-01 13:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 2/4] ip_frag: ensure minimum v6 " Aaron Conole
2020-04-01 13:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 3/4] ip_frag: ipv6 fragments must not be resubmitted to fragmentation Aaron Conole
2020-04-01 13:18 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 4/4] ipfrag: add unit test case Aaron Conole
2020-04-01 18:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 0/4] ip_frag: add a unit test for fragmentation Aaron Conole
2020-04-01 18:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 1/4] ip_frag: ensure minimum v4 fragmentation length Aaron Conole
2020-04-07 11:10 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-04-07 12:52 ` Aaron Conole
2020-04-07 14:14 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-04-07 18:41 ` Aaron Conole [this message]
2020-04-08 12:37 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-04-08 15:45 ` Aaron Conole
2020-04-01 18:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 2/4] ip_frag: ensure minimum v6 " Aaron Conole
2020-04-07 10:48 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-04-01 18:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 3/4] ip_frag: ipv6 fragments must not be resubmitted to fragmentation Aaron Conole
2020-04-07 10:43 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-04-07 12:40 ` Aaron Conole
2020-04-01 18:39 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3 4/4] ipfrag: add unit test case Aaron Conole
2020-04-04 15:58 ` Pavan Nikhilesh Bhagavatula
2020-04-15 17:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 0/3] ip_frag: add a unit test for fragmentation Aaron Conole
2020-04-15 17:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 1/3] ip_frag: ensure minimum v4 fragmentation length Aaron Conole
2020-04-17 11:52 ` Lukasz Wojciechowski
2020-04-15 17:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 2/3] ip_frag: ensure minimum v6 " Aaron Conole
2020-04-17 11:52 ` Lukasz Wojciechowski
2020-04-15 17:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v4 3/3] ipfrag: add unit test case Aaron Conole
2020-04-16 15:30 ` Lukasz Wojciechowski
2020-04-16 18:52 ` Aaron Conole
2020-04-17 13:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 0/3] ip_frag: add a unit test for fragmentation Aaron Conole
2020-04-17 13:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 1/3] ip_frag: ensure minimum v4 fragmentation length Aaron Conole
2020-04-20 12:50 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-04-20 15:24 ` Aaron Conole
2020-04-17 13:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/3] ip_frag: ensure minimum v6 " Aaron Conole
2020-04-20 12:53 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-04-20 15:26 ` Aaron Conole
2020-04-20 15:43 ` Ananyev, Konstantin
2020-04-17 13:14 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 3/3] ipfrag: add unit test case Aaron Conole
2020-04-17 14:14 ` Lukasz Wojciechowski
2020-04-20 16:03 ` Burakov, Anatoly
2020-04-20 17:34 ` Aaron Conole
2020-04-25 12:18 ` Thomas Monjalon
2020-04-20 19:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/3] ip_frag: add a unit test for fragmentation Aaron Conole
2020-04-20 19:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 1/3] ip_frag: ensure minimum v4 fragmentation length Aaron Conole
2020-04-21 11:04 ` Lukasz Wojciechowski
2020-04-20 19:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 2/3] ip_frag: ensure minimum v6 " Aaron Conole
2020-04-21 11:04 ` Lukasz Wojciechowski
2020-04-20 19:25 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 3/3] ipfrag: add unit test case Aaron Conole
2020-04-21 11:03 ` Lukasz Wojciechowski
2020-04-25 13:16 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 0/3] ip_frag: add a unit test for fragmentation Thomas Monjalon
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=f7td08j9m0a.fsf@dhcp-25.97.bos.redhat.com \
--to=aconole@redhat.com \
--cc=anatoly.burakov@intel.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=chas3@att.com \
--cc=david.marchand@redhat.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=konstantin.ananyev@intel.com \
--cc=skori@marvell.com \
/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).