[v5] ip_frag: remove padding length of fragment
Checks
Commit Message
In some situations, we would get several ip fragments, which total
data length is less than min_ip_len(64) and padding with zeros.
We simulated intermediate fragments by modifying the MTU.
To illustrate the problem, we simplify the packet format and
ignore the impact of the packet header.In namespace2,
a packet whose data length is 1520 is sent.
When the packet passes tap2, the packet is divided into two
fragments: fragment A and B, similar to (1520 = 1510 + 10).
When the packet passes tap3, the larger fragment packet A is
divided into two fragments A1 and A2, similar to (1510 = 1500 + 10).
Finally, the bond interface receives three fragments:
A1, A2, and B (1520 = 1500 + 10 + 10).
One fragmented packet A2 is smaller than the minimum Ethernet
frame length, so it needs to be padded.
|---------------------------------------------------|
| HOST |
| |--------------| |----------------------------| |
| | ns2 | | |--------------| | |
| | |--------| | | |--------| |--------| | |
| | | tap1 | | | | tap2 | ns1| tap3 | | |
| | |mtu=1510| | | |mtu=1510| |mtu=1500| | |
| |--|1.1.1.1 |--| |--|1.1.1.2 |----|2.1.1.1 |--| |
| |--------| |--------| |--------| |
| | | | |
| |-----------------| | |
| | |
| |--------| |
| | bond | |
|--------------------------------------|mtu=1500|---|
|--------|
When processing the preceding packets above,
DPDK would aggregate fragmented packets A2 and B.
And error packets are generated, which padding(zero)
is displayed in the middle of the packet.
A2 + B:
0000 fa 16 3e 9f fb 82 fa 47 b2 57 dc 20 08 00 45 00
0010 00 33 b4 66 00 ba 3f 01 c1 a5 01 01 01 01 02 01
0020 01 02 c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 00 00 00 00 00 00
0030 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 c8 c9 ca cb
0040 cc cd ce cf d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 da db
0050 dc dd de df e0 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6
So, we would calculate the length of padding, and remove
the padding in pkt_len and data_len before aggregation.
Fixes: 7f0983ee331c ("ip_frag: check fragment length of incoming packet")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
Signed-off-by: Yicai Lu <luyicai@huawei.com>
---
v4 -> v5: Update the comments and description.
---
lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
Comments
Hi Yicai,
> In some situations, we would get several ip fragments, which total
> data length is less than min_ip_len(64) and padding with zeros.
> We simulated intermediate fragments by modifying the MTU.
> To illustrate the problem, we simplify the packet format and
> ignore the impact of the packet header.In namespace2,
> a packet whose data length is 1520 is sent.
> When the packet passes tap2, the packet is divided into two
> fragments: fragment A and B, similar to (1520 = 1510 + 10).
> When the packet passes tap3, the larger fragment packet A is
> divided into two fragments A1 and A2, similar to (1510 = 1500 + 10).
> Finally, the bond interface receives three fragments:
> A1, A2, and B (1520 = 1500 + 10 + 10).
> One fragmented packet A2 is smaller than the minimum Ethernet
> frame length, so it needs to be padded.
>
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> | HOST |
> | |--------------| |----------------------------| |
> | | ns2 | | |--------------| | |
> | | |--------| | | |--------| |--------| | |
> | | | tap1 | | | | tap2 | ns1| tap3 | | |
> | | |mtu=1510| | | |mtu=1510| |mtu=1500| | |
> | |--|1.1.1.1 |--| |--|1.1.1.2 |----|2.1.1.1 |--| |
> | |--------| |--------| |--------| |
> | | | | |
> | |-----------------| | |
> | | |
> | |--------| |
> | | bond | |
> |--------------------------------------|mtu=1500|---|
> |--------|
>
> When processing the preceding packets above,
> DPDK would aggregate fragmented packets A2 and B.
> And error packets are generated, which padding(zero)
> is displayed in the middle of the packet.
>
> A2 + B:
> 0000 fa 16 3e 9f fb 82 fa 47 b2 57 dc 20 08 00 45 00
> 0010 00 33 b4 66 00 ba 3f 01 c1 a5 01 01 01 01 02 01
> 0020 01 02 c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0030 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 c8 c9 ca cb
> 0040 cc cd ce cf d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 da db
> 0050 dc dd de df e0 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6
>
> So, we would calculate the length of padding, and remove
> the padding in pkt_len and data_len before aggregation.
>
> Fixes: 7f0983ee331c ("ip_frag: check fragment length of incoming packet")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Yicai Lu <luyicai@huawei.com>
> ---
> v4 -> v5: Update the comments and description.
> ---
> lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> index 1dda8ac..fdf66a4 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
> const unaligned_uint64_t *psd;
> uint16_t flag_offset, ip_ofs, ip_flag;
> int32_t ip_len;
> + int32_t trim;
>
> flag_offset = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ip_hdr->fragment_offset);
> ip_ofs = (uint16_t)(flag_offset & RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_MASK);
> @@ -117,14 +118,15 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
>
> ip_ofs *= RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_UNITS;
> ip_len = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ip_hdr->total_length) - mb->l3_len;
> + trim = mb->pkt_len - (ip_len + mb->l3_len + mb->l2_len);
>
> IP_FRAG_LOG(DEBUG, "%s:%d:\n"
> - "mbuf: %p, tms: %" PRIu64
> - ", key: <%" PRIx64 ", %#x>, ofs: %u, len: %d, flags: %#x\n"
> + "mbuf: %p, tms: %" PRIu64 ", key: <%" PRIx64 ", %#x>"
> + "ofs: %u, len: %d, padding: %d, flags: %#x\n"
> "tbl: %p, max_cycles: %" PRIu64 ", entry_mask: %#x, "
> "max_entries: %u, use_entries: %u\n\n",
> __func__, __LINE__,
> - mb, tms, key.src_dst[0], key.id, ip_ofs, ip_len, ip_flag,
> + mb, tms, key.src_dst[0], key.id, ip_ofs, ip_len, trim, ip_flag,
> tbl, tbl->max_cycles, tbl->entry_mask, tbl->max_entries,
> tbl->use_entries);
>
> @@ -134,6 +136,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
> return NULL;
> }
>
> + if (unlikely(trim > 0)) {
> + rte_pktmbuf_trim(mb, trim);
> + }
As a nit {} braces are not required for single expression.
LGTM in general, just one thing: shouldn't we have the same fix for ipv6 then?
Konstantin
> +
> /* try to find/add entry into the fragment's table. */
> if ((fp = ip_frag_find(tbl, dr, &key, tms)) == NULL) {
> IP_FRAG_MBUF2DR(dr, mb);
> --
> 1.9.5.msysgit.1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ananyev, Konstantin [mailto:konstantin.ananyev@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 10:45 PM
> To: luyicai <luyicai@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Zhoujingbin (Robin, Russell Lab) <zhoujingbin@huawei.com>; chenchanghu <chenchanghu@huawei.com>; Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>; Linhaifeng <haifeng.lin@huawei.com>; Guohongzhi (Russell Lab) <guohongzhi1@huawei.com>; wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>; stable@dpdk.org
> Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] ip_frag: remove padding length of fragment
> Hi Yicai,
> In some situations, we would get several ip fragments, which total
> data length is less than min_ip_len(64) and padding with zeros.
> We simulated intermediate fragments by modifying the MTU.
> To illustrate the problem, we simplify the packet format and ignore
> the impact of the packet header.In namespace2, a packet whose data
> length is 1520 is sent.
> When the packet passes tap2, the packet is divided into two
> fragments: fragment A and B, similar to (1520 = 1510 + 10).
> When the packet passes tap3, the larger fragment packet A is divided
> into two fragments A1 and A2, similar to (1510 = 1500 + 10).
> Finally, the bond interface receives three fragments:
> A1, A2, and B (1520 = 1500 + 10 + 10).
> One fragmented packet A2 is smaller than the minimum Ethernet frame
> length, so it needs to be padded.
>
> |---------------------------------------------------|
> | HOST |
> | |--------------| |----------------------------| |
> | | ns2 | | |--------------| | |
> | | |--------| | | |--------| |--------| | |
> | | | tap1 | | | | tap2 | ns1| tap3 | | |
> | | |mtu=1510| | | |mtu=1510| |mtu=1500| | |
> | |--|1.1.1.1 |--| |--|1.1.1.2 |----|2.1.1.1 |--| |
> | |--------| |--------| |--------| |
> | | | | |
> | |-----------------| | |
> | | |
> | |--------| |
> | | bond | |
> |--------------------------------------|mtu=1500|---|
> |--------|
>
> When processing the preceding packets above, DPDK would aggregate
> fragmented packets A2 and B.
> And error packets are generated, which padding(zero) is displayed in
> the middle of the packet.
>
> A2 + B:
> 0000 fa 16 3e 9f fb 82 fa 47 b2 57 dc 20 08 00 45 00
> 0010 00 33 b4 66 00 ba 3f 01 c1 a5 01 01 01 01 02 01
> 0020 01 02 c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 00 00 00 00 00 00
> 0030 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 c8 c9 ca cb
> 0040 cc cd ce cf d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 da db
> 0050 dc dd de df e0 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6
>
> So, we would calculate the length of padding, and remove the padding
> in pkt_len and data_len before aggregation.
>
> Fixes: 7f0983ee331c ("ip_frag: check fragment length of incoming
> packet")
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>
> Signed-off-by: Yicai Lu <luyicai@huawei.com>
> ---
> v4 -> v5: Update the comments and description.
> ---
> lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c | 12 +++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> index 1dda8ac..fdf66a4 100644
> --- a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> +++ b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
> const unaligned_uint64_t *psd;
> uint16_t flag_offset, ip_ofs, ip_flag;
> int32_t ip_len;
> + int32_t trim;
>
> flag_offset = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ip_hdr->fragment_offset);
> ip_ofs = (uint16_t)(flag_offset & RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_MASK); @@
> -117,14 +118,15 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
>
> ip_ofs *= RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_UNITS;
> ip_len = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ip_hdr->total_length) - mb->l3_len;
> + trim = mb->pkt_len - (ip_len + mb->l3_len + mb->l2_len);
>
> IP_FRAG_LOG(DEBUG, "%s:%d:\n"
> - "mbuf: %p, tms: %" PRIu64
> - ", key: <%" PRIx64 ", %#x>, ofs: %u, len: %d, flags: %#x\n"
> + "mbuf: %p, tms: %" PRIu64 ", key: <%" PRIx64 ", %#x>"
> + "ofs: %u, len: %d, padding: %d, flags: %#x\n"
> "tbl: %p, max_cycles: %" PRIu64 ", entry_mask: %#x, "
> "max_entries: %u, use_entries: %u\n\n",
> __func__, __LINE__,
> - mb, tms, key.src_dst[0], key.id, ip_ofs, ip_len, ip_flag,
> + mb, tms, key.src_dst[0], key.id, ip_ofs, ip_len, trim, ip_flag,
> tbl, tbl->max_cycles, tbl->entry_mask, tbl->max_entries,
> tbl->use_entries);
>
> @@ -134,6 +136,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
> return NULL;
> }
>
> + if (unlikely(trim > 0)) {
> + rte_pktmbuf_trim(mb, trim);
> + }
> As a nit {} braces are not required for single expression.
> LGTM in general, just one thing: shouldn't we have the same fix for ipv6 then?
> Konstantin
Hi Konstantin,
Thanks!
During the problem analysis, we have discussed on ipv6
and concluded that it does not exist in ipv6.
For ipv6, it consists of the following parts:
basic header = 40(bytes)
DMAC = 6(bytes)
SMAC = 6(bytes)
Type = 2(bytes)
CRC = 4(bytes)
fragment header = 8(bytes)
...
40 + 6 + 6 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 66 (bytes)
Total is already greater than min_ip_len(64). So it doesn't
need to be padded with zeros.
> +
> /* try to find/add entry into the fragment's table. */
> if ((fp = ip_frag_find(tbl, dr, &key, tms)) == NULL) {
> IP_FRAG_MBUF2DR(dr, mb);
> --
> 1.9.5.msysgit.1
Hi Yicai,
> > In some situations, we would get several ip fragments, which total
> > data length is less than min_ip_len(64) and padding with zeros.
> > We simulated intermediate fragments by modifying the MTU.
> > To illustrate the problem, we simplify the packet format and ignore
> > the impact of the packet header.In namespace2, a packet whose data
> > length is 1520 is sent.
> > When the packet passes tap2, the packet is divided into two
> > fragments: fragment A and B, similar to (1520 = 1510 + 10).
> > When the packet passes tap3, the larger fragment packet A is divided
> > into two fragments A1 and A2, similar to (1510 = 1500 + 10).
> > Finally, the bond interface receives three fragments:
> > A1, A2, and B (1520 = 1500 + 10 + 10).
> > One fragmented packet A2 is smaller than the minimum Ethernet frame
> > length, so it needs to be padded.
> >
> > |---------------------------------------------------|
> > | HOST |
> > | |--------------| |----------------------------| |
> > | | ns2 | | |--------------| | |
> > | | |--------| | | |--------| |--------| | |
> > | | | tap1 | | | | tap2 | ns1| tap3 | | |
> > | | |mtu=1510| | | |mtu=1510| |mtu=1500| | |
> > | |--|1.1.1.1 |--| |--|1.1.1.2 |----|2.1.1.1 |--| |
> > | |--------| |--------| |--------| |
> > | | | | |
> > | |-----------------| | |
> > | | |
> > | |--------| |
> > | | bond | |
> > |--------------------------------------|mtu=1500|---|
> > |--------|
> >
> > When processing the preceding packets above, DPDK would aggregate
> > fragmented packets A2 and B.
> > And error packets are generated, which padding(zero) is displayed in
> > the middle of the packet.
> >
> > A2 + B:
> > 0000 fa 16 3e 9f fb 82 fa 47 b2 57 dc 20 08 00 45 00
> > 0010 00 33 b4 66 00 ba 3f 01 c1 a5 01 01 01 01 02 01
> > 0020 01 02 c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > 0030 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 c8 c9 ca cb
> > 0040 cc cd ce cf d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 da db
> > 0050 dc dd de df e0 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6
> >
> > So, we would calculate the length of padding, and remove the padding
> > in pkt_len and data_len before aggregation.
> >
> > Fixes: 7f0983ee331c ("ip_frag: check fragment length of incoming
> > packet")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yicai Lu <luyicai@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > v4 -> v5: Update the comments and description.
> > ---
> > lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c | 12 +++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> > b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> > index 1dda8ac..fdf66a4 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> > @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
> > const unaligned_uint64_t *psd;
> > uint16_t flag_offset, ip_ofs, ip_flag;
> > int32_t ip_len;
> > + int32_t trim;
> >
> > flag_offset = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ip_hdr->fragment_offset);
> > ip_ofs = (uint16_t)(flag_offset & RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_MASK); @@
> > -117,14 +118,15 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
> >
> > ip_ofs *= RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_UNITS;
> > ip_len = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ip_hdr->total_length) - mb->l3_len;
> > + trim = mb->pkt_len - (ip_len + mb->l3_len + mb->l2_len);
> >
> > IP_FRAG_LOG(DEBUG, "%s:%d:\n"
> > - "mbuf: %p, tms: %" PRIu64
> > - ", key: <%" PRIx64 ", %#x>, ofs: %u, len: %d, flags: %#x\n"
> > + "mbuf: %p, tms: %" PRIu64 ", key: <%" PRIx64 ", %#x>"
> > + "ofs: %u, len: %d, padding: %d, flags: %#x\n"
> > "tbl: %p, max_cycles: %" PRIu64 ", entry_mask: %#x, "
> > "max_entries: %u, use_entries: %u\n\n",
> > __func__, __LINE__,
> > - mb, tms, key.src_dst[0], key.id, ip_ofs, ip_len, ip_flag,
> > + mb, tms, key.src_dst[0], key.id, ip_ofs, ip_len, trim, ip_flag,
> > tbl, tbl->max_cycles, tbl->entry_mask, tbl->max_entries,
> > tbl->use_entries);
> >
> > @@ -134,6 +136,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > + if (unlikely(trim > 0)) {
> > + rte_pktmbuf_trim(mb, trim);
> > + }
>
> > As a nit {} braces are not required for single expression.
> > LGTM in general, just one thing: shouldn't we have the same fix for ipv6 then?
> > Konstantin
>
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> Thanks!
>
> During the problem analysis, we have discussed on ipv6
> and concluded that it does not exist in ipv6.
>
> For ipv6, it consists of the following parts:
> basic header = 40(bytes)
> DMAC = 6(bytes)
> SMAC = 6(bytes)
> Type = 2(bytes)
> CRC = 4(bytes)
> fragment header = 8(bytes)
> ...
>
> 40 + 6 + 6 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 66 (bytes)
>
> Total is already greater than min_ip_len(64). So it doesn't
> need to be padded with zeros.
For normal cases - yes, but in theory there could be some unusual scenarios
(tunnelled packet, different media, etc.).
So for consistency and to avoid unforeseen issues - I think better to have
the fix for both ipv4 and ipv6.
After all the impact looks neglectable.
Konstantin
>
> > +
> > /* try to find/add entry into the fragment's table. */
> > if ((fp = ip_frag_find(tbl, dr, &key, tms)) == NULL) {
> > IP_FRAG_MBUF2DR(dr, mb);
> > --
> > 1.9.5.msysgit.1
-----Original Message-----
From: Ananyev, Konstantin [mailto:konstantin.ananyev@intel.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 6:45 PM
To: luyicai <luyicai@huawei.com>; dev@dpdk.org
Cc: Zhoujingbin (Robin, Russell Lab) <zhoujingbin@huawei.com>; chenchanghu <chenchanghu@huawei.com>; Lilijun (Jerry) <jerry.lilijun@huawei.com>; Linhaifeng <haifeng.lin@huawei.com>; Guohongzhi (Russell Lab) <guohongzhi1@huawei.com>; wangyunjian <wangyunjian@huawei.com>; stable@dpdk.org
Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5] ip_frag: remove padding length of fragment
> Hi Yicai,
> > In some situations, we would get several ip fragments, which total
> > data length is less than min_ip_len(64) and padding with zeros.
> > We simulated intermediate fragments by modifying the MTU.
> > To illustrate the problem, we simplify the packet format and ignore
> > the impact of the packet header.In namespace2, a packet whose data
> > length is 1520 is sent.
> > When the packet passes tap2, the packet is divided into two
> > fragments: fragment A and B, similar to (1520 = 1510 + 10).
> > When the packet passes tap3, the larger fragment packet A is divided
> > into two fragments A1 and A2, similar to (1510 = 1500 + 10).
> > Finally, the bond interface receives three fragments:
> > A1, A2, and B (1520 = 1500 + 10 + 10).
> > One fragmented packet A2 is smaller than the minimum Ethernet frame
> > length, so it needs to be padded.
> >
> > |---------------------------------------------------|
> > | HOST |
> > | |--------------| |----------------------------| |
> > | | ns2 | | |--------------| | |
> > | | |--------| | | |--------| |--------| | |
> > | | | tap1 | | | | tap2 | ns1| tap3 | | |
> > | | |mtu=1510| | | |mtu=1510| |mtu=1500| | |
> > | |--|1.1.1.1 |--| |--|1.1.1.2 |----|2.1.1.1 |--| |
> > | |--------| |--------| |--------| |
> > | | | | |
> > | |-----------------| | |
> > | | |
> > | |--------| |
> > | | bond | |
> > |--------------------------------------|mtu=1500|---|
> > |--------|
> >
> > When processing the preceding packets above, DPDK would aggregate
> > fragmented packets A2 and B.
> > And error packets are generated, which padding(zero) is displayed in
> > the middle of the packet.
> >
> > A2 + B:
> > 0000 fa 16 3e 9f fb 82 fa 47 b2 57 dc 20 08 00 45 00
> > 0010 00 33 b4 66 00 ba 3f 01 c1 a5 01 01 01 01 02 01
> > 0020 01 02 c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > 0030 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 c8 c9 ca cb
> > 0040 cc cd ce cf d0 d1 d2 d3 d4 d5 d6 d7 d8 d9 da db
> > 0050 dc dd de df e0 e1 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6
> >
> > So, we would calculate the length of padding, and remove the padding
> > in pkt_len and data_len before aggregation.
> >
> > Fixes: 7f0983ee331c ("ip_frag: check fragment length of incoming
> > packet")
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yicai Lu <luyicai@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > v4 -> v5: Update the comments and description.
> > ---
> > lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c | 12 +++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> > b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> > index 1dda8ac..fdf66a4 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_ip_frag/rte_ipv4_reassembly.c
> > @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
> > const unaligned_uint64_t *psd;
> > uint16_t flag_offset, ip_ofs, ip_flag;
> > int32_t ip_len;
> > + int32_t trim;
> >
> > flag_offset = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ip_hdr->fragment_offset);
> > ip_ofs = (uint16_t)(flag_offset & RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_MASK); @@
> > -117,14 +118,15 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
> >
> > ip_ofs *= RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_UNITS;
> > ip_len = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ip_hdr->total_length) - mb->l3_len;
> > + trim = mb->pkt_len - (ip_len + mb->l3_len + mb->l2_len);
> >
> > IP_FRAG_LOG(DEBUG, "%s:%d:\n"
> > - "mbuf: %p, tms: %" PRIu64
> > - ", key: <%" PRIx64 ", %#x>, ofs: %u, len: %d, flags: %#x\n"
> > + "mbuf: %p, tms: %" PRIu64 ", key: <%" PRIx64 ", %#x>"
> > + "ofs: %u, len: %d, padding: %d, flags: %#x\n"
> > "tbl: %p, max_cycles: %" PRIu64 ", entry_mask: %#x, "
> > "max_entries: %u, use_entries: %u\n\n",
> > __func__, __LINE__,
> > - mb, tms, key.src_dst[0], key.id, ip_ofs, ip_len, ip_flag,
> > + mb, tms, key.src_dst[0], key.id, ip_ofs, ip_len, trim, ip_flag,
> > tbl, tbl->max_cycles, tbl->entry_mask, tbl->max_entries,
> > tbl->use_entries);
> >
> > @@ -134,6 +136,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > + if (unlikely(trim > 0)) {
> > + rte_pktmbuf_trim(mb, trim);
> > + }
>
> > As a nit {} braces are not required for single expression.
> > LGTM in general, just one thing: shouldn't we have the same fix for ipv6 then?
> > Konstantin
>
> Hi Konstantin,
>
> Thanks!
>
> During the problem analysis, we have discussed on ipv6 and concluded
> that it does not exist in ipv6.
>
> For ipv6, it consists of the following parts:
> basic header = 40(bytes)
> DMAC = 6(bytes)
> SMAC = 6(bytes)
> Type = 2(bytes)
> CRC = 4(bytes)
> fragment header = 8(bytes)
> ...
>
> 40 + 6 + 6 + 2 + 4 + 8 = 66 (bytes)
>
> Total is already greater than min_ip_len(64). So it doesn't need to be
> padded with zeros.
> For normal cases - yes, but in theory there could be some unusual scenarios (tunnelled packet, different media, etc.).
> So for consistency and to avoid unforeseen issues - I think better to have the fix for both ipv4 and ipv6.
> After all the impact looks neglectable.
> Konstantin
Hi Konstantin,
Agree!
In terms of code symmetry, it should be better.
Whatever, I'll submit an another patch(v6) later.
>
> > +
> > /* try to find/add entry into the fragment's table. */
> > if ((fp = ip_frag_find(tbl, dr, &key, tms)) == NULL) {
> > IP_FRAG_MBUF2DR(dr, mb);
> > --
> > 1.9.5.msysgit.1
@@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
const unaligned_uint64_t *psd;
uint16_t flag_offset, ip_ofs, ip_flag;
int32_t ip_len;
+ int32_t trim;
flag_offset = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ip_hdr->fragment_offset);
ip_ofs = (uint16_t)(flag_offset & RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_MASK);
@@ -117,14 +118,15 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
ip_ofs *= RTE_IPV4_HDR_OFFSET_UNITS;
ip_len = rte_be_to_cpu_16(ip_hdr->total_length) - mb->l3_len;
+ trim = mb->pkt_len - (ip_len + mb->l3_len + mb->l2_len);
IP_FRAG_LOG(DEBUG, "%s:%d:\n"
- "mbuf: %p, tms: %" PRIu64
- ", key: <%" PRIx64 ", %#x>, ofs: %u, len: %d, flags: %#x\n"
+ "mbuf: %p, tms: %" PRIu64 ", key: <%" PRIx64 ", %#x>"
+ "ofs: %u, len: %d, padding: %d, flags: %#x\n"
"tbl: %p, max_cycles: %" PRIu64 ", entry_mask: %#x, "
"max_entries: %u, use_entries: %u\n\n",
__func__, __LINE__,
- mb, tms, key.src_dst[0], key.id, ip_ofs, ip_len, ip_flag,
+ mb, tms, key.src_dst[0], key.id, ip_ofs, ip_len, trim, ip_flag,
tbl, tbl->max_cycles, tbl->entry_mask, tbl->max_entries,
tbl->use_entries);
@@ -134,6 +136,10 @@ struct rte_mbuf *
return NULL;
}
+ if (unlikely(trim > 0)) {
+ rte_pktmbuf_trim(mb, trim);
+ }
+
/* try to find/add entry into the fragment's table. */
if ((fp = ip_frag_find(tbl, dr, &key, tms)) == NULL) {
IP_FRAG_MBUF2DR(dr, mb);