From: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
To: Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>
Cc: passt-dev@passt.top
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tap: Explicitly drop IPv4 fragments, and give a warning
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 14:20:43 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZKTvmwmri5r7Am/n@zatzit> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZKTBm/CjNNOX9nuW@zatzit>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4334 bytes --]
Do not apply this version of the patch: I just discovered it's
entirely breaking ping. Investigating...
On Wed, Jul 05, 2023 at 11:04:27AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 01:21:04PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 14:36:23 +1000
> > David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> >
> > > We don't handle defragmentation of IP packets coming from the tap side,
> > > and we're unlikely to any time soon (with our large MTU, it's not useful
> > > for practical use cases). Currently, however, we simply ignore the
> > > fragmentation flags and treat fragments as though they were whole IP
> > > packets. This isn't ideal and can lead to rather cryptic behaviour if we
> > > do receive IP fragments.
> > >
> > > Change the code to explicitly drop fragmented packets, and print a rate
> > > limited warning if we do encounter them.
> > >
> > > Bugzilla: https://bugs.passt.top/show_bug.cgi?id=62
> >
> > By the way, I silently replaced those with "Link:" in the past, just in
> > case we want to automate something around it one day, to avoid
> > differences between references to different bug trackers.
>
> Oh, ok. I'll keep that in mind.
>
> > Once upon a time, I wrote some scripting to automatically link HTML
> > reports with (Linux kernel) commits to bug trackers, and it was quite
> > painful to discover all possible spellings of "Bugzilla" plus a few
> > others, hence my thought. But let me know if something speaks against
> > this.
>
> No, that makes sense.
>
> > > Signed-off-by: David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> > > ---
> > > tap.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tap.c b/tap.c
> > > index e3235299..2e6939fa 100644
> > > --- a/tap.c
> > > +++ b/tap.c
> > > @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ static PACKET_POOL_NOINIT(pool_tap4, TAP_MSGS, pkt_buf);
> > > static PACKET_POOL_NOINIT(pool_tap6, TAP_MSGS, pkt_buf);
> > >
> > > #define TAP_SEQS 128 /* Different L4 tuples in one batch */
> > > +#define FRAGMENT_MSG_RATE 10 /* # seconds between fragment warnings */
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * tap_send() - Send frame, with qemu socket header if needed
> > > @@ -543,6 +544,32 @@ static void tap_packet_debug(const struct iphdr *iph,
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/**
> > > + * tap4_is_fragment() - Determine if a packet is an IP fragment
> >
> > This is actually independent from the "tap" "side", it could also be
> > e.g. ipv4_is_fragment(), in util.c. Not a strong preference though, I
> > guess we can also merge it as it is.
>
> Well.. the detection of fragments is independent, but the warning
> message is specific to tap. I'm inclined to leave it as is, at least
> until we have a need for this logic somewhere else, at which point we
> can refactor.
>
> >
> > > + * @iph: IPv4 header (length already validated)
> > > + * @now: Current timestamp
> > > + *
> > > + * Return: true if iph is an IP fragment, false otherwise
> > > + */
> > > +static bool tap4_is_fragment(const struct iphdr *iph,
> > > + const struct timespec *now)
> > > +{
> > > + if (iph->frag_off & ~IP_DF) {
> > > + /* Ratelimit messages */
> > > + static time_t last_message;
> > > + static unsigned num_dropped;
> > > +
> > > + num_dropped++;
> > > + if (now->tv_sec - last_message > FRAGMENT_MSG_RATE) {
> > > + warn("Can't process IPv4 fragments (%lu dropped)", num_dropped);
> > > + last_message = now->tv_sec;
> > > + num_dropped = 0;
> > > + }
> > > + return true;
> > > + }
> > > + return false;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * tap4_handler() - IPv4 and ARP packet handler for tap file descriptor
> > > * @c: Execution context
> > > @@ -591,6 +618,10 @@ resume:
> > > hlen > l3_len)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > + /* We don't handle IP fragments, drop them */
> > > + if (tap4_is_fragment(iph, now))
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > l4_len = l3_len - hlen;
> > >
> > > if (iph->saddr && c->ip4.addr_seen.s_addr != iph->saddr) {
> >
>
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-05 4:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-04 4:36 [PATCH] tap: Explicitly drop IPv4 fragments, and give a warning David Gibson
2023-07-04 11:21 ` Stefano Brivio
2023-07-05 1:04 ` David Gibson
2023-07-05 4:20 ` David Gibson [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=ZKTvmwmri5r7Am/n@zatzit \
--to=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--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).