Hello,
On Thu, 3 May 2018, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > - when exactly we start to use the new PMTU, eg. what happens
> > in case socket caches the route, whether route is killed via
> > dst->obsolete. Or may be while the PMTU expiration is handled
> > per-packet, the PMTU change is noticed only on ICMP...
> Before sk can reuse its dst cache, the sk will notice
> its dst cache is no longer valid by calling dst_check().
> dst_check() should return NULL which is one of the side
> effect of the earlier update_pmtu(). This dst_check()
> is usually only called when the sk needs to do output,
> so the new PMTU route (i.e. the RTF_CACHE IPv6 route)
> only have effect to the later packets.
I checked again the code and it looks like sockets
are forced to use new exceptional route (RTF_CACHE/fnhe) via
dst_check only when the PMTU update should move them away
from old non-exceptional routes. Later, if PMTU is
reduced/updated this is noticed for every packet via dst_mtu,
as in the case with TCP.
So, except the RTF_LOCAL check in __ip6_rt_update_pmtu
we should have no other issues. Only one minor bit is strange to me,
why rt6_insert_exception warns for RTF_PCPU if rt6_cache_allowed_for_pmtu
allows it when returning true...
Also, commit 0d3f6d297bfb allows rt6_do_update_pmtu() for
routes without RTF_CACHE, RTF_PCPU and rt6i_node. Should we
restrict rt6_do_update_pmtu only to RTF_CACHE routes?
if (!rt6_cache_allowed_for_pmtu(rt6)) {
- rt6_do_update_pmtu(rt6, mtu);
- /* update rt6_ex->stamp for cache */
- if (rt6->rt6i_flags & RTF_CACHE)
+ if (rt6->rt6i_flags & RTF_CACHE) {
+ rt6_do_update_pmtu(rt6, mtu);
+ /* update rt6_ex->stamp for cache */
rt6_update_exception_stamp_rt(rt6);
+ }
} else if (daddr) {
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <ja@xxxxxx>
--
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
