Re: [PATCH] geneve: fix max_mtu setting

[Jesse Gross]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:27 PM, 严海双  wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Jesse Gross  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Haishuang Yan
>  wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2016, at 8:35 PM, zhuyj  wrote:
>
> +   if (geneve->remote.sa.sa_family == AF_INET)
> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct iphdr);
> +   else
> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct ipv6hdr);
>
> Sorry, if sa_family is not AF_NET, it is AF_INET6?
>
> There is a lot of macros in include/linux/socket.h.
>
> Zhu Yanjun
>
>
> There are only two enumerations AF_INET and AF_INET6 have been assigned in
> geneve_newlink:
>
>
> There's actually a third possibility: AF_UNSPEC, which is the default
> if neither remote type is specified. This is used by lightweight
> tunnels and should be able to work with either IPv4/v6. For the
> purposes of the MTU calculation this means that the IPv4 header size
> should be used to avoid disallowing potentially valid configurations.
>
>
> Yes, you’re right. Thanks for you advise. I will send a v2 commit like this:
>
>if (geneve->remote.sa.sa_family == AF_INET6)
>   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct ipv6hdr);
>else
>   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct iphdr);
>
> Is this ok?

Yes, that looks fine to me.

Re: [PATCH] geneve: fix max_mtu setting

[Jesse Gross]

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 6:27 PM, 严海双  wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:10 AM, Jesse Gross  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Haishuang Yan
>  wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2016, at 8:35 PM, zhuyj  wrote:
>
> +   if (geneve->remote.sa.sa_family == AF_INET)
> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct iphdr);
> +   else
> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct ipv6hdr);
>
> Sorry, if sa_family is not AF_NET, it is AF_INET6?
>
> There is a lot of macros in include/linux/socket.h.
>
> Zhu Yanjun
>
>
> There are only two enumerations AF_INET and AF_INET6 have been assigned in
> geneve_newlink:
>
>
> There's actually a third possibility: AF_UNSPEC, which is the default
> if neither remote type is specified. This is used by lightweight
> tunnels and should be able to work with either IPv4/v6. For the
> purposes of the MTU calculation this means that the IPv4 header size
> should be used to avoid disallowing potentially valid configurations.
>
>
> Yes, you’re right. Thanks for you advise. I will send a v2 commit like this:
>
>if (geneve->remote.sa.sa_family == AF_INET6)
>   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct ipv6hdr);
>else
>   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct iphdr);
>
> Is this ok?

Yes, that looks fine to me.

Re: [PATCH] geneve: fix max_mtu setting

[Jesse Gross]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 6:13 PM, 严海双  wrote:
>
>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 8:35 PM, zhuyj  wrote:
>>
>> +   if (geneve->remote.sa.sa_family == AF_INET)
>> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct iphdr);
>> +   else
>> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct ipv6hdr);
>>
>> Sorry, if sa_family is not AF_NET, it is AF_INET6?
>>
>> There is a lot of macros in include/linux/socket.h.
>>
>> Zhu Yanjun
>>
>
> There are only two enumerations AF_INET and AF_INET6 have been assigned in 
> geneve_newlink:

There's actually a third possibility: AF_UNSPEC, which is the default
if neither remote type is specified. This is used by lightweight
tunnels and should be able to work with either IPv4/v6. For the
purposes of the MTU calculation this means that the IPv4 header size
should be used to avoid disallowing potentially valid configurations.

Re: [PATCH] geneve: fix max_mtu setting

[Jesse Gross]

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 6:13 PM, 严海双  wrote:
>
>> On Jun 26, 2016, at 8:35 PM, zhuyj  wrote:
>>
>> +   if (geneve->remote.sa.sa_family == AF_INET)
>> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct iphdr);
>> +   else
>> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct ipv6hdr);
>>
>> Sorry, if sa_family is not AF_NET, it is AF_INET6?
>>
>> There is a lot of macros in include/linux/socket.h.
>>
>> Zhu Yanjun
>>
>
> There are only two enumerations AF_INET and AF_INET6 have been assigned in 
> geneve_newlink:

There's actually a third possibility: AF_UNSPEC, which is the default
if neither remote type is specified. This is used by lightweight
tunnels and should be able to work with either IPv4/v6. For the
purposes of the MTU calculation this means that the IPv4 header size
should be used to avoid disallowing potentially valid configurations.

Re: [PATCH] geneve: fix max_mtu setting

[严海双]

> On Jun 26, 2016, at 8:35 PM, zhuyj  wrote:
> 
> +   if (geneve->remote.sa.sa_family == AF_INET)
> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct iphdr);
> +   else
> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct ipv6hdr);
> 
> Sorry, if sa_family is not AF_NET, it is AF_INET6?
> 
> There is a lot of macros in include/linux/socket.h.
> 
> Zhu Yanjun
> 

There are only two enumerations AF_INET and AF_INET6 have been assigned in 
geneve_newlink:

if (data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE] && data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE6])
return -EINVAL;

if (data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE]) {
remote.sa.sa_family = AF_INET;
remote.sin.sin_addr.s_addr =
nla_get_in_addr(data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE]);
}

if (data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE6]) {
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6))
return -EPFNOSUPPORT;

remote.sa.sa_family = AF_INET6;
remote.sin6.sin6_addr =
nla_get_in6_addr(data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE6]);

if (ipv6_addr_type(_addr) &
IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) {
netdev_dbg(dev, "link-local remote is unsupported\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
}

So I think the else case is for AF_INET6 only.

Re: [PATCH] geneve: fix max_mtu setting

[严海双]

> On Jun 26, 2016, at 8:35 PM, zhuyj  wrote:
> 
> +   if (geneve->remote.sa.sa_family == AF_INET)
> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct iphdr);
> +   else
> +   max_mtu -= sizeof(struct ipv6hdr);
> 
> Sorry, if sa_family is not AF_NET, it is AF_INET6?
> 
> There is a lot of macros in include/linux/socket.h.
> 
> Zhu Yanjun
> 

There are only two enumerations AF_INET and AF_INET6 have been assigned in 
geneve_newlink:

if (data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE] && data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE6])
return -EINVAL;

if (data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE]) {
remote.sa.sa_family = AF_INET;
remote.sin.sin_addr.s_addr =
nla_get_in_addr(data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE]);
}

if (data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE6]) {
if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6))
return -EPFNOSUPPORT;

remote.sa.sa_family = AF_INET6;
remote.sin6.sin6_addr =
nla_get_in6_addr(data[IFLA_GENEVE_REMOTE6]);

if (ipv6_addr_type(_addr) &
IPV6_ADDR_LINKLOCAL) {
netdev_dbg(dev, "link-local remote is unsupported\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
}

So I think the else case is for AF_INET6 only.