Re: [RFC PATCH net-next] net: gro: coalesce padded small IPv4 TCP segments

Richard Gobert <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.netdev,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Glenn Judd wrote:
> Software GRO fails to coalesce small IPv4/TCP segment that was
> padded up to the 60-byte minimum Ethernet frame.
> 
> The selftest tools/testing/selftests/drivers/net/hw/gro.py subtest
> sw_ipv4_data_lrg_1byte sends {100, 1} expecting to receive {101}.
> In current code, it receives {100, 1} (no coalescing) instead.
> 
> Cause: inet_gro_receive() computes its flush term from
> tot_len ^ skb_gro_len() before skb_gro_pull(), while skb_gro_len()
> still includes trailing Ethernet padding. A small IPv4/TCP segment
> padded up to the 60-byte minimum frame has tot_len != skb_gro_len(),
> so flush is set and the runt never coalesces.
> 
> Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4-8
> Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5.6
> Assisted-by: Meta:internal-AI-tooling
> Signed-off-by: Glenn Judd <[email protected]>
> ---
> 
> Notes:
>     RFC notes
>     ---------
>     Per Jakub Kicinski, the open question is fast-path cost: this adds two
>     operations to the common IPv4 GRO path for every packet -- reading
>     iph->tot_len and the skb_gro_len() comparison.  Everything expensive
>     (linear check, trim, pointer refresh, csum recompute) is behind unlikely()
>     on the slow path.  Is that per-packet cost worth the coalescing win for
>     padded runts?
>     
>     Testing: netdevsim cannot reproduce this -- it never pads short frames to
>     ETH_ZLEN -- so sw_ipv4_data_lrg_1byte passes trivially there.  Reproduced
>     and fixed on a real NIC (cx7): baseline FAIL -> patched PASS.  Also
>     validated locally under KASAN + CONFIG_FAIL_SKB_REALLOC (no UAF).
> 
>  net/ipv4/af_inet.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> index 32d006c1a8ee..998ff77fd7b9 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/af_inet.c
> @@ -1470,6 +1470,7 @@ struct sk_buff *inet_gro_receive(struct list_head *head, struct sk_buff *skb)
>  	const struct net_offload *ops;
>  	struct sk_buff *pp = NULL;
>  	const struct iphdr *iph;
> +	unsigned int tot_len;
>  	struct sk_buff *p;
>  	unsigned int hlen;
>  	unsigned int off;
> @@ -1498,6 +1499,25 @@ struct sk_buff *inet_gro_receive(struct list_head *head, struct sk_buff *skb)
>  		goto out;
>  
>  	NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->proto = proto;
> +
> +	tot_len = ntohs(iph->tot_len);
> +	if (unlikely(skb_gro_len(skb) > tot_len)) {
> +		if (!skb_is_nonlinear(skb)) {
> +			if (tot_len < sizeof(*iph) ||
> +			    pskb_trim_rcsum(skb, off + tot_len))
> +				goto out;
> +
> +			NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->frag0 = skb->data;
> +			NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->frag0_len = skb->len;
> +			iph = skb_gro_header(skb, hlen, off);
> +			if (unlikely(!iph))
> +				goto out;
> +			if (skb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_COMPLETE)
> +				NAPI_GRO_CB(skb)->csum =
> +					skb_checksum(skb, off, tot_len, 0);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
>  	flush = (u16)((ntohl(*(__be32 *)iph) ^ skb_gro_len(skb)) | (ntohl(*(__be32 *)&iph->id) & ~IP_DF));
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry(p, head, list) {
> 
> base-commit: 2fbade66245059c78daeaccfce13ecf499fffb51

To address Jakub's question on the fast-path cost: I benchmarked GRO
forwarding with two-minute long iperf sessions using 1, 2 and 4 TCP streams
(17 runs per configuration) and CPU frequency scaling disabled. I also
disabled RSS during the benchmarks because it caused a lot of noise - up to
20% variance in the deltas.

| streams | baseline (Gbit/s)  | patched (Gbit/s)  | delta  |
|---------|--------------------|-------------------|--------|
|    1    | 14.083 ± 1.01      | 14.065 ± 0.67     | −0.13% |
|    2    | 13.891 ± 0.75      | 13.926 ± 0.78     | +0.25% |
|    4    | 13.008 ± 1.26      | 13.029 ± 0.97     | +0.16% |

The two added fast-path operations (iph->tot_len read + the skb_gro_len()
comparison on every IPv4 GRO packet) produce no measurable throughput
change. The deltas are all well under the 95% confidence interval and
indistinguishable from noise.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.