|
>
>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.
Well, if we start using it it could be worth it...
As a first sketch I think adding protocol and offset to inet6_skb_parm would be
sufficient,
and then scan the header in ipv6_defrag() which is a quite early ...
/Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lvs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|
