On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 2:01 PM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is agreement that hard_header_len should be the length of link
> layer headers visible to the upper layers, needed_headroom the
> additional room required for headers that are not exposed, i.e., those
> pushed inside ndo_start_xmit.
>
> The link layer header length also has to agree with the interface
> hardware type (ARPHRD_..).
>
> Tunnel devices have not always been consistent in this, but today
> "bare" ip tunnel devices without additional headers (ipip, sit, ..) do
> match this and advertise 0 byte hard_header_len. Bareudp, vxlan and
> geneve also conform to this. Known exception that probably needs to be
> addressed is sit, which still advertises LL_MAX_HEADER and so has
> exposed quite a few syzkaller issues. Side note, it is not entirely
> clear to me what sets ARPHRD_TUNNEL et al apart from ARPHRD_NONE and
> why they are needed.
>
> GRE devices advertise ARPHRD_IPGRE and GRETAP advertise ARPHRD_ETHER.
> The second makes sense, as it appears as an Ethernet device. The first
> should match "bare" ip tunnel devices, if following the above logic.
> Indeed, this is what commit e271c7b4420d ("gre: do not keep the GRE
> header around in collect medata mode") implements. It changes
> dev->type to ARPHRD_NONE in collect_md mode.
>
> Some of the inconsistency comes from the various modes of the GRE
> driver. Which brings us to ipgre_header_ops. It is set only in two
> special cases.
>
> Commit 6a5f44d7a048 ("[IPV4] ip_gre: sendto/recvfrom NBMA address")
> added ipgre_header_ops.parse to be able to receive the inner ip source
> address with PF_PACKET recvfrom. And apparently relies on
> ipgre_header_ops.create to be able to set an address, which implies
> SOCK_DGRAM.
>
> The other special case, CONFIG_NET_IPGRE_BROADCAST, predates git. Its
> implementation starts with the beautiful comment "/* Nice toy.
> Unfortunately, useless in real life :-)". From the rest of that
> detailed comment, it is not clear to me why it would need to expose
> the headers. The example does not use packet sockets.
>
> A packet socket cannot know devices details such as which configurable
> mode a device may be in. And different modes conflict with the basic
> rule that for a given well defined link layer type, i.e., dev->type,
> header length can be expected to be consistent. In an ideal world
> these exceptions would not exist, therefore.Nice explanation of the situation. I agree with you. Thanks!
