Hello,
On Fri, 3 Jul 2015, Alex Gartrell wrote:
> > - if packets go to local server IPVS should not touch
> > skb->dst, skb->sk, etc (NF_ACCEPT case)
>
> Yeah, the thing is that early demux could totally match for a socket
> that existed before we created the service, an
> Looks like routing by definition can not divert skbs with
> early-demux socket because input routing is not called.
Only if found socket has a valid sk->sk_rx_dst
Early demux :
1) if TCP lookup found a matching socket, we do the attachment
skb->sk = sk;
skb->destructor = sock_ede
Hey
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> To summarize:
> - we should call skb_orphan as soon as possible after
> deciding if packets goes to local or remote real server
> but only for skb->sk set by early_demux, not for packets
> sent by TCP
Hello,
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Alex Gartrell wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Alex Gartrell wrote:
> > If early demux was enabled, we'd use the route from the socket
>
> Actually now that I think about it, this is probably broken, because
> we don't reply to the packet but instead
On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 14:18 -0700, Alex Gartrell wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> > I think, your patch from January is almost
> > good:
>
> I'll rebase it, add your other suggestions, test it, and send it in.
>
> > And the patch from Eric for IPVS looks
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Alex Gartrell wrote:
> If early demux was enabled, we'd use the route from the socket
Actually now that I think about it, this is probably broken, because
we don't reply to the packet but instead silently drop it.
--
Alex Gartrell http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> I think, your patch from January is almost
> good:
I'll rebase it, add your other suggestions, test it, and send it in.
> And the patch from Eric for IPVS looks good too.
Are we sure that we want to change the semantics of set_ow
Hello,
On Thu, 2 Jul 2015, Julian Anastasov wrote:
> Alex, in our discussion on January I thought
> we can skip calling skb_orphan for some cases but as
> input and output path use different skb->destructor
> we should call skb_orphan for every method, in every
> case when skb->dev
Hello,
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Alex Gartrell wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > I think you are mistaken Alex.
>
> Indeed, I was! Should be unsurpising.
>
> >
> > socket early demux cannot possibly set skb->destructor to sock_rfree()
>
> Yeah I will admit a
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I think you are mistaken Alex.
Indeed, I was! Should be unsurpising.
>
> socket early demux cannot possibly set skb->destructor to sock_rfree()
Yeah I will admit adding the code to sock_rfree reflexively out of paranoia.
> If skb->destruct
On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 01:26 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Alex Gartrell wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:14 PM, David Miller wrote:
> >> > From: Alex Gartrell
> >> > Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:13:09 -0700
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Alex Gartrell wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:14 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> > From: Alex Gartrell
>> > Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:13:09 -0700
>> >
>> >> If we early-demux bind a TCP_TIMEWAIT socket to an skb
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:14 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Alex Gartrell
> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:13:09 -0700
>
>> If we early-demux bind a TCP_TIMEWAIT socket to an skb and then orphan it
>> (as we need to do in the ipvs forwarding case), sock_wfree and sock_rfree
>> are going to reach into
From: Alex Gartrell
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:13:09 -0700
> If we early-demux bind a TCP_TIMEWAIT socket to an skb and then orphan it
> (as we need to do in the ipvs forwarding case), sock_wfree and sock_rfree
> are going to reach into the inet_timewait_sock and mess with fields that
> don't exist
If we early-demux bind a TCP_TIMEWAIT socket to an skb and then orphan it
(as we need to do in the ipvs forwarding case), sock_wfree and sock_rfree
are going to reach into the inet_timewait_sock and mess with fields that
don't exist.
Signed-off-by: Alex Gartrell
---
net/core/sock.c | 6 ++
1
15 matches
Mail list logo
