From: Jon Maloy <jmaloy@redhat.com>
To: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
Cc: passt-dev@passt.top, lvivier@redhat.com, dgibson@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tap: always set the no_frag flag in IPv4 headers.
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 09:26:54 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0e286f0b-4427-4679-a4a0-b5e8910c3563@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250214235716.2c7019df@elisabeth>
On 2025-02-14 17:57, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 17:46:21 -0500
> Jon Maloy <jmaloy@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2025-02-14 06:00, Stefano Brivio wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:50:23 -0500
>>> Jon Maloy <jmaloy@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> When studying the Linux source code and Wireshark dumps it seems like
>>>> the no_frag flag in the IPv4 header is always set. Following discussions
>>>> in the Internet on this subject indicates that modern routers never
>>>> fragment packets, and that it isn't even supported in many cases.
>>>>
>>>> Adding to this that incoming messages forwarded on the tap interface
>>>> never even pass through a router it seems safe to always set this flag.
>>>>
>>>> This makes the IPv4 headers of forwarded messages identical to those
>>>> sent by the external sockets, something we must consider desirable.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Maloy <jmaloy@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tap.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tap.c b/tap.c
>>>> index d0673e5..44b0fc0 100644
>>>> --- a/tap.c
>>>> +++ b/tap.c
>>>> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ static void *tap_push_ip4h(struct iphdr *ip4h, struct in_addr src,
>>>> ip4h->tos = 0;
>>>> ip4h->tot_len = htons(l3len);
>>>> ip4h->id = 0;
>>>> - ip4h->frag_off = 0;
>>>> + ip4h->frag_off = htons(IP_DF);
>>>
>>> $ tshark -r test/test_logs/pasta.pcap -V -Y frame.number==9 | grep "Header Checksum"
>>> Header Checksum: 0x07d4 incorrect, should be 0xc7d3(may be caused by "IP checksum offload"?)
>>>
>>> See L2_BUF_IP4_PSUM().
>>
>> Not sure what to do about this. I don't even see we calculate the
>> checksum in our code
>
> We precalculate that part, see L2_BUF_IP4_PSUM() (and also
> L2_BUF_IP4_INIT()).
>
>> so does it matter?
Brain fart. I was thinking about the UDP header checksum, which
is optional we don't caluclate in current code.
Of course it matters.
>
> Well, I think it matters that we send out valid IPv4 packets. Try this
> change and see for yourself.
>
Ok. Now I see what you mean. I will try this.
///jon
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-16 14:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-12 23:50 [PATCH] tap: always set the no_frag flag in IPv4 headers Jon Maloy
2025-02-14 11:00 ` Stefano Brivio
2025-02-14 22:46 ` Jon Maloy
2025-02-14 22:57 ` Stefano Brivio
2025-02-16 14:26 ` Jon Maloy [this message]
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=0e286f0b-4427-4679-a4a0-b5e8910c3563@redhat.com \
--to=jmaloy@redhat.com \
--cc=dgibson@redhat.com \
--cc=lvivier@redhat.com \
--cc=passt-dev@passt.top \
--cc=sbrivio@redhat.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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://passt.top/passt
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 IMAP folder(s).