Re: Re[3]: [PATCH 2/3] ipvs: Fix faulty IPv6 extension header handling

To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Re[3]: [PATCH 2/3] ipvs: Fix faulty IPv6 extension header handling in IPVS
Cc: Hans Schillstrom <hans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lvs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wensong Zhang <wensong@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, netfilter-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:28:53 +0200 (MEST)
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:

To Hans and Patrick,

On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 14:02 +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012, Hans Schillstrom wrote:

On Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:

Based on patch from: Hans Schillstrom

IPv6 headers must be processed in order of appearance,
neither can it be assumed that Upper layer headers is first.
If anything else than L4 is the first header IPVS will throw it.

IPVS will write SNAT & DNAT modifications at a fixed pos which
will corrupt the message. Proper header position must be found
before writing modifying packet.

This patch contains a lot of API changes.  This is done, to avoid
the costly scan of finding the IPv6 headers, via ipv6_find_hdr().
Finding the IPv6 headers is done as early as possible, and passed
on as a pointer "struct ip_vs_iphdr *" to the affected functions.

How about we change netfilter to set up the skb's transport header
at an early time so we can avoid all (most of) these header scans
in netfilter?

I think that would be great, maybe it should be global i.e. not only a 
netfilter issue.

I think in most other cases the headers are supposed to be processed
sequentially. One problem though - to be useful for netfilter/IPVS
we'd also need to store the transport layer protocol somewhere.

I guess that's the problem, adding it to the skb will not be popular ....
Right now I don't have a good solution, maybe a more generic netfilter ptr in 
the skb ...

I guess inet6_skb_parm will be at least slightly more popular than
adding it to the skb itself. The netfilter pointers are all used for
optional things, so we can't really add it to any of those.

Okay, but how do we go from here?

Hans, should this hold back the patch ("ipvs: Fix faulty IPv6 extension
header handling in IPVS").  Or should we pursue our patch, and circle
back later once e.g. Patrick have found a generic solution for IPv6
transport header handling?

I don't think we can do much better than using inet6_skb_parm. I think
the main question is whether it is really worth it, the iteration shouldn't be that expensive in most cases.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>