From: Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
To: Yingnan Zhang <342144303@qq.com>
Cc: horms@verge.net.au, pablo@netfilter.org, fw@strlen.de,
phil@nwl.cc, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org,
coreteam@netfilter.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] ipvs: fix MTU check for GSO packets in tunnel mode
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2026 15:59:10 +0300 (EEST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <841b490f-c01e-293c-9c5d-5871b9a5a383@ssi.bg> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <tencent_CA2C1C219C99D315086BE55E8654AF7E6009@qq.com>
Hello,
On Thu, 2 Apr 2026, Yingnan Zhang wrote:
> Currently, IPVS skips MTU checks for GSO packets by excluding them with
> the !skb_is_gso(skb) condition in both IPv4 and IPv6 code paths. This
> creates problems when IPVS tunnel mode encapsulates GSO packets with
> IPIP or IPv6 tunnel headers.
>
> The issue manifests in two ways:
>
> 1. MTU violation after encapsulation:
> When a GSO packet passes through IPVS tunnel mode, the original MTU
> check is bypassed. After adding the tunnel header, the packet size
> may exceed the outgoing interface MTU, leading to unexpected
> fragmentation at the IP layer.
>
> 2. Fragmentation with problematic IP IDs:
> When net.ipv4.vs.pmtu_disc=1 and a GSO packet with multiple segments
> is fragmented after encapsulation, each segment gets a sequentially
> incremented IP ID (0, 1, 2, ...). This happens because:
>
> a) The GSO packet bypasses MTU check and gets encapsulated
> b) At __ip_finish_output, the oversized GSO packet is split into
> separate SKBs (one per segment), with IP IDs incrementing
> c) Each SKB is then fragmented again based on the actual MTU
>
> This sequential IP ID allocation differs from the expected behavior
> and can cause issues with fragment reassembly and packet tracking.
>
> Fix this by removing the GSO packet exception from the MTU check in both
> IPv4 and IPv6 paths, and properly validating GSO packets using
> skb_gso_validate_network_len(). The condition is refactored to avoid
> code duplication.
>
> Fixes: 4cdd34084d53 ("netfilter: nf_conntrack_ipv6: improve fragmentation handling")
> Signed-off-by: Yingnan Zhang <342144303@qq.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Added IPv6 fix in __mtu_check_toobig_v6() per Julian's review
> - Refactored to avoid code duplication per Julian's suggestion
> - Applied same validation pattern to both IPv4 and IPv6 paths
>
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260401152228.31190-1-342144303@qq.com/
>
> net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_xmit.c | 8 +++++---
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_xmit.c b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_xmit.c
> index 3601eb86d..ac2ad7518 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_xmit.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/ipvs/ip_vs_xmit.c
> @@ -112,7 +112,8 @@ __mtu_check_toobig_v6(const struct sk_buff *skb, u32 mtu)
> if (IP6CB(skb)->frag_max_size > mtu)
> return true; /* largest fragment violate MTU */
> }
You should remove the above line because compilation fails...
> - else if (skb->len > mtu && !skb_is_gso(skb)) {
> + } else if (skb->len > mtu &&
> + !(skb_is_gso(skb) && skb_gso_validate_network_len(skb, mtu))) {
> return true; /* Packet size violate MTU size */
> }
> return false;
> @@ -232,8 +233,9 @@ static inline bool ensure_mtu_is_adequate(struct netns_ipvs *ipvs, int skb_af,
> return true;
>
> if (unlikely(ip_hdr(skb)->frag_off & htons(IP_DF) &&
> - skb->len > mtu && !skb_is_gso(skb) &&
> - !ip_vs_iph_icmp(ipvsh))) {
> + skb->len > mtu && !ip_vs_iph_icmp(ipvsh) &&
> + !(skb_is_gso(skb) &&
> + skb_gso_validate_network_len(skb, mtu)))) {
Please keep the indentation, just like in my example
> icmp_send(skb, ICMP_DEST_UNREACH, ICMP_FRAG_NEEDED,
> htonl(mtu));
> IP_VS_DBG(1, "frag needed for %pI4\n",
> --
> 2.51.0
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@ssi.bg>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-02 12:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-02 12:09 Yingnan Zhang
2026-04-02 12:59 ` Julian Anastasov [this message]
2026-04-07 10:38 ` kernel test robot
2026-04-07 11:43 ` kernel test robot
2026-04-07 12:22 ` kernel test robot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=841b490f-c01e-293c-9c5d-5871b9a5a383@ssi.bg \
--to=ja@ssi.bg \
--cc=342144303@qq.com \
--cc=coreteam@netfilter.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=horms@verge.net.au \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lvs-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=pablo@netfilter.org \
--cc=phil@nwl.cc \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®