net/ipv4/route.c: Routing anomaly introduced by 89aef89 (ipv4: Delete routing cache.)
Subsystems (2)
Hi,
In 89aef89 (ipv4: Delete routing cache) the following was removed from ip_route_input_common (nowadays named ip_route_input_noref):
- tos &= IPTOS_RT_MASK;
As a side effect, the 'tos' argument passed to 'ip_route_input_slow' is the "raw" u8, as present in iph->tos (opposed to the formerly "masked" value).
This may affect the route calculation, as this value is later placed in fl4.flowi4_tos for matching purposes (using equality to the tos stored in the FIB Rule and/or Route).
(BTW, the question whether applying the historical IPTOS_RT_MASK prior route lookup is interesting on its own...)
However, 89aef89 created an anomaly - since in the output path, routing *still* uses the IPTOS_RT_MASK (see __ip_route_output_key for example).
It seems the omission of 'tos &= IPTOS_RT_MASK' from 'ip_route_input_noref' was accidental.
We should align input/output behavior by reverting the omission, or alternatively we may reconsider the entire IPTOS_RT_MASK thing.
Regards,
Shmulik
Hello,
Quoted 15 lines · Shmulik Ladkani
Hi,
In 89aef89 (ipv4: Delete routing cache) the following was removed from
ip_route_input_common(nowadays namedip_route_input_noref):- tos &=
IPTOS_RT_MASK;As a side effect, the 'tos' argument passed to '
ip_route_input_slow' is the "raw" u8, as present iniph->tos(opposed to the formerly "masked" value).This may affect the route calculation, as this value is later placed in fl4.flowi4_tos for matching purposes (using equality to the tos stored in the FIB Rule and/or Route).
Quoted 8 lines
(BTW, the question whether applying the historical
IPTOS_RT_MASKprior route lookup is interesting on its own...)However, 89aef89 created an anomaly - since in the output path, routing *still* uses the
IPTOS_RT_MASK(see__ip_route_output_keyfor example).It seems the omission of 'tos &=
IPTOS_RT_MASK' from 'ip_route_input_noref' was accidental.
Agreed
Quoted 2 lines
We should align input/output behavior by reverting the omission, or alternatively we may reconsider the entire
IPTOS_RT_MASKthing.
The right thing should be to use tos &= IPTOS_RT_MASK
at beginning of ip_route_input_noref.
Regards
--
Julian Anastasov <[email protected]>
Quoted 10 lines · On Tue, 9 Jul 2013 08:43:14 +0300 (EEST) Julian Anastasov <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
It seems the omission of 'tos &=
IPTOS_RT_MASK' from 'ip_route_input_noref' was accidental.Agreed
Quoted 2 lines
We should align input/output behavior by reverting the omission, or alternatively we may reconsider the entire
IPTOS_RT_MASKthing.The right thing should be to use tos &=
IPTOS_RT_MASK
at beginning ofip_route_input_noref.
Agreed. Will post a patch.
Regards,
Shmulik