m_copy & if_simloop
Sam Leffler
sam at errno.com
Sun Nov 26 10:48:17 PST 2006
Yar Tikhiy wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> A friend user reported to me that rwhod wouldn't work in CURRENT
> due to broken outgoing packets. Here's an example:
>
> 16:15:28.212810 IP truncated-ip - 6865 bytes missing! (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 28554, offset 0, flags [none], proto: UDP (17), length: 7169, bad cksum 11c (->c64b)!) 10.10.10.4.513 > 10.10.10.255.513: UDP, length 276
> 0x0000: 4500 1c01 6f8a 0000 4011 011c 0a0a 0a04 E...o... at .......
> ^^^^ ^^^^ broken fields
> 0x0010: 0a0a 0aff 0201 0201 011c 0000 0101 0000 ................
> 0x0020: 4565 9ef0 0000 0000 6467 0000 0000 0000 Ee......dg......
> 0x0030: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................
> 0x0040: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 001a 0000 000e ................
> 0x0050: 0000 0005 4564 a5e7 7474 7976 3000 0000 ....Ed..ttyv0...
> 0x0060: 726f 6f74 0000 0000 4565 9d4a 0000 01a6 root....Ee.J....
> 0x0070: 7474 7976 3100 0000 726f 6f74 0000 0000 ttyv1...root....
> 0x0080: 4565 9d4d 0000 000c 7474 7976 3200 0000 Ee.M....ttyv2...
> 0x0090: 726f 6f74 0000 0000 4565 9d4f 0000 0099 root....Ee.O....
> 0x00a0: 7474 7976 3300 0000 726f 6f74 0000 0000 ttyv3...root....
> 0x00b0: 4565 9d52 0000 019e 7474 7976 3400 0000 Ee.R....ttyv4...
> 0x00c0: 726f 6f74 0000 0000 4565 9d54 0000 019c root....Ee.T....
> 0x00d0: 7474 7976 3500 0000 726f 6f74 0000 0000 ttyv5...root....
> 0x00e0: 4565 9d59 0000 0198 7474 7976 3600 0000 Ee.Y....ttyv6...
> 0x00f0: 726f 6f74 0000 0000 4565 9d5b 0000 0195 root....Ee.[....
> 0x0100: 7474 7976 3700 0000 726f 6f74 0000 0000 ttyv7...root....
> 0x0110: 4565 9d5e 0000 0000 7474 7970 3100 0000 Ee.^....ttyp1...
> 0x0120: 7961 7200 0000 0000 4565 8361 0000 04b2 yar.....Ee.a....
>
> BTW, the problem manifests itself only if the packet is longer than
> 256 bytes.
>
> The problem seems to stem from the following. In ether_output(),
> the broadcast packet is copied and looped back up the stack, now
> via if_simloop(). The copy has been made with m_copy() since 4.4BSD.
> I can't tell about the old days, but today m_copy() alias m_copym()
> will copy mbufs but not mbuf clusters, which results in an effectively
> read-only copy. Such a copy must not be passed up the stack because
> the stack is free to change it and thus destroy the original. For
> a long time, enough leading bytes were in plain mbuf(s) for the bug
> to stay unnoticed. However, the pattern changed in CURRENT some
> day and -- here we are.
>
> The problem can be cured by using m_dup() in place of m_copy()
> (verified).
>
> Is my analysis correct?
Sounds likely. The read-only'ness definitely.
>
> If so, here's an idea of a general fix. Several source files do
> the following:
>
> struct mbuf *mcopy = m_copy(m, 0, M_COPYALL);
> /* some even don't check mcopy for NULL here! */
> if_simloop(ifp, mcopy, family, hdrlen);
>
> It's common code, so just a flag to if_simloop() cound be introduced
> meaning "m_dup() the packet properly". E.g.:
>
> if_simloop(ifp, m, family, hdrlen, M_DUP);
>
> In STABLE, M_COPYALL can be added to hdrlen instead to preserve the
> ABI. M_COPYALL is defined as 1000000000 now, which allows for the
> trick.
>
> Comments? Thanks!
What you suggest seems ok. You might also look at m_unshare which was
added for similar purpose but is not exactly what you want. It may be
possible to combine m_copy+m_unshare code (not calls) to create the new
mbuf chain more efficiently.
Sam
More information about the freebsd-net
mailing list