-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/41158/#review109641
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Ship It!

- Jie Yu


On Dec. 9, 2015, 11:15 p.m., Cong Wang wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/41158/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 9, 2015, 11:15 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Ian Downes and Jie Yu.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-4105
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-4105
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> We noticed that in some cases we delivered some corrupt packets to 
> applications running in our containers. This is clearly wrong. 
> 
> Here is what happens:
> 
> 1) We receive a corrupt packet externally
> 2) The hardware driver is able to checksum it and notices it has a bad 
> checksum
> 3) The driver delivers this packet anyway to wait for TCP layer to checksum 
> it again and then drop it
> 4) This packet is moved to a veth interface because it is for a container
> 5) Both sides of the veth pair have RX checksum offloading by default
> 6) The veth_xmit() marks the packet's checksum as UNNECESSARY since its peer 
> device has rx checksum offloading
> 7) Packet is moved into the container TCP/IP stack
> 8) TCP layer is not going to checksum it since it is not necessary
> 9) The packet gets delivered to application layer
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/slave/containerizer/mesos/isolators/network/port_mapping.cpp 
> 89bb36f936417de8169a2442729fbd7c9d60acb7 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/41158/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 1) Turn rx checksum off manually and the bug is gone
> 2) Test this patch and verify rx checksum is turned off as expected.
> 3) I don't see any noticable performance issue after turning this off
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Cong Wang
> 
>

Reply via email to