Re: [net-next] ipv6: fix routing cache overflow for raw sockets

From: Jonathan Maxwell
Date: Thu Dec 22 2022 - 00:41:28 EST


On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 3:31 PM Jonathan Maxwell <jmaxwell37@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 8:55 AM Jonathan Maxwell <jmaxwell37@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 2:10 AM David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/20/22 5:35 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2022-12-19 at 10:48 +1100, Jon Maxwell wrote:
> > > >> Sending Ipv6 packets in a loop via a raw socket triggers an issue where a
> > > >> route is cloned by ip6_rt_cache_alloc() for each packet sent. This quickly
> > > >> consumes the Ipv6 max_size threshold which defaults to 4096 resulting in
> > > >> these warnings:
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] 99.187805] dst_alloc: 7728 callbacks suppressed
> > > >> [2] Route cache is full: consider increasing sysctl net.ipv6.route.max_size.
> > > >> .
> > > >> .
> > > >> [300] Route cache is full: consider increasing sysctl net.ipv6.route.max_size.
> > > >
> > > > If I read correctly, the maximum number of dst that the raw socket can
> > > > use this way is limited by the number of packets it allows via the
> > > > sndbuf limit, right?
> > > >
> > > > Are other FLOWI_FLAG_KNOWN_NH users affected, too? e.g. nf_dup_ipv6,
> > > > ipvs, seg6?
> > > >
> > > > @DavidA: why do we need to create RTF_CACHE clones for KNOWN_NH flows?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Paolo
> > > >
> > >
> > > If I recall the details correctly: that sysctl limit was added back when
> > > ipv6 routes were managed as dst_entries and there was a desire to allow
> > > an admin to limit the memory consumed. At this point in time, IPv6 is
> > > more inline with IPv4 - a separate struct for fib entries from dst
> > > entries. That "Route cache is full" message is now out of date since
> > > this is dst_entries which have a gc mechanism.
> > >
> > > IPv4 does not limit the number of dst_entries that can be allocated
> > > (ip_rt_max_size is the sysctl variable behind the ipv4 version of
> > > max_size and it is a no-op). IPv6 can probably do the same here?
> > >
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
> > index dbc224023977..701aba7feaf5 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> > @@ -6470,7 +6470,7 @@ static int __net_init ip6_route_net_init(struct net *net)
> > #endif
> >
> > net->ipv6.sysctl.flush_delay = 0;
> > - net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_max_size = 4096;
> > + net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_max_size = INT_MAX;
> > net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_gc_min_interval = HZ / 2;
> > net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_gc_timeout = 60*HZ;
> > net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_gc_interval = 30*HZ;
> >
> > The above patch resolved it for the Ipv6 reproducer.
> >
> > Would that be sufficient?
> >
>
> Otherwise if you prefer to make Ipv6 behaviour similar to IPv4.
> Rather than upping max_size.
>
> Here is prototype patch that removes the max_size check for Ipv6:
>

There are some mistakes in this prototype patch. Let me come up with a
better one. I'll submit a new patch in the new year for review. Thanks for
the suggestion DavidA.

Regards

Jon

> diff --git a/include/net/dst_ops.h b/include/net/dst_ops.h
> index 88ff7bb2bb9b..632086b2f644 100644
> --- a/include/net/dst_ops.h
> +++ b/include/net/dst_ops.h
> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ struct dst_ops {
> unsigned short family;
> unsigned int gc_thresh;
>
> - int (*gc)(struct dst_ops *ops);
> + void (*gc)(struct dst_ops *ops);
> struct dst_entry * (*check)(struct dst_entry *, __u32 cookie);
> unsigned int (*default_advmss)(const struct dst_entry *);
> unsigned int (*mtu)(const struct dst_entry *);
> diff --git a/net/core/dst.c b/net/core/dst.c
> index 497ef9b3fc6a..dcb85267bc4c 100644
> --- a/net/core/dst.c
> +++ b/net/core/dst.c
> @@ -82,12 +82,8 @@ void *dst_alloc(struct dst_ops *ops, struct net_device *dev,
>
> if (ops->gc &&
> !(flags & DST_NOCOUNT) &&
> - dst_entries_get_fast(ops) > ops->gc_thresh) {
> - if (ops->gc(ops)) {
> - pr_notice_ratelimited("Route cache is full:
> consider increasing sysctl net.ipv6.route.max_size.\n");
> - return NULL;
> - }
> - }
> + dst_entries_get_fast(ops) > ops->gc_thresh)
> + ops->gc(ops);
>
> dst = kmem_cache_alloc(ops->kmem_cachep, GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (!dst)
> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
> index dbc224023977..8db7c5436da4 100644
> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ static struct dst_entry *ip6_negative_advice(struct
> dst_entry *);
> static void ip6_dst_destroy(struct dst_entry *);
> static void ip6_dst_ifdown(struct dst_entry *,
> struct net_device *dev, int how);
> -static int ip6_dst_gc(struct dst_ops *ops);
> +static void ip6_dst_gc(struct dst_ops *ops);
>
> static int ip6_pkt_discard(struct sk_buff *skb);
> static int ip6_pkt_discard_out(struct net *net, struct
> sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb);
> @@ -3295,32 +3295,21 @@ struct dst_entry *icmp6_dst_alloc(struct
> net_device *dev,
> return dst;
> }
>
> -static int ip6_dst_gc(struct dst_ops *ops)
> +static void ip6_dst_gc(struct dst_ops *ops)
> {
> struct net *net = container_of(ops, struct net, ipv6.ip6_dst_ops);
> - int rt_min_interval = net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_gc_min_interval;
> - int rt_max_size = net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_max_size;
> int rt_elasticity = net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_gc_elasticity;
> int rt_gc_timeout = net->ipv6.sysctl.ip6_rt_gc_timeout;
> - unsigned long rt_last_gc = net->ipv6.ip6_rt_last_gc;
> int entries;
>
> entries = dst_entries_get_fast(ops);
> - if (entries > rt_max_size)
> - entries = dst_entries_get_slow(ops);
> -
> - if (time_after(rt_last_gc + rt_min_interval, jiffies) &&
> - entries <= rt_max_size)
> - goto out;
>
> net->ipv6.ip6_rt_gc_expire++;
> fib6_run_gc(net->ipv6.ip6_rt_gc_expire, net, true);
> entries = dst_entries_get_slow(ops);
> if (entries < ops->gc_thresh)
> net->ipv6.ip6_rt_gc_expire = rt_gc_timeout>>1;
> -out:
> net->ipv6.ip6_rt_gc_expire -= net->ipv6.ip6_rt_gc_expire>>rt_elasticity;
> - return entries > rt_max_size;
> }
>
> static int ip6_nh_lookup_table(struct net *net, struct fib6_config *cfg,
>
> > > I do not believe the suggested flag is the right change.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Jon