ipv6: gro: flush instead of assuming different flows on hop_limit mismatch
IPv6 GRO considers packets to belong to different flows when their hop_limit is different. This seems counter-intuitive, the flow is the same. hop_limit may vary because of various bugs or hacks but that doesn't mean it's okay for GRO to reorder packets. Practical impact of this problem on overall TCP performance is unclear, but TCP itself detects this reordering and bumps TCPSACKReorder resulting in user complaints. Eric warns that there may be performance regressions in setups which do packet spraying across links with similar RTT but different hop count. To be safe let's target -next and not treat this as a fix. If the packet spraying is using flow label there should be no difference in behavior as flow label is checked first. Note that the code plays an easy to miss trick by upcasting next_hdr to a u16 pointer and compares next_hdr and hop_limit in one go. Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment