1. Patchew
  2. linux
  3. View series

[PATCH net] gro_cells: Avoid packet re-ordering for cloned skbs

Thomas Bogendoerfer posted 1 patch 11 months, 2 weeks ago
There is a newer version of this series
net/core/gro_cells.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
[PATCH net] gro_cells: Avoid packet re-ordering for cloned skbs
Posted by Thomas Bogendoerfer 11 months, 2 weeks ago 
gro_cells_receive() passes a cloned skb directly up the stack and
could cause re-ordering against segments still in GRO. To avoid
this copy the skb and let GRO do it's work.

Fixes: c9e6bc644e55 ("net: add gro_cells infrastructure")
Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
---
 net/core/gro_cells.c | 11 ++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
index ff8e5b64bf6b..2f8d688f9d82 100644
--- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
+++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
@@ -20,11 +20,20 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells, struct sk_buff *skb)
 	if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
 		goto drop;
 
-	if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
+	if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
+netif_rx:
 		res = netif_rx(skb);
 		goto unlock;
 	}
+	if (skb_cloned(skb)) {
+		struct sk_buff *n;
 
+		n = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
+		if (!n)
+			goto netif_rx;
+		kfree_skb(skb);
+		skb = n;
+	}
 	cell = this_cpu_ptr(gcells->cells);
 
 	if (skb_queue_len(&cell->napi_skbs) > READ_ONCE(net_hotdata.max_backlog)) {
-- 
2.35.3
Re: [PATCH net] gro_cells: Avoid packet re-ordering for cloned skbs
Posted by Eric Dumazet 11 months, 2 weeks ago 
On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
<tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
>
> gro_cells_receive() passes a cloned skb directly up the stack and
> could cause re-ordering against segments still in GRO. To avoid
> this copy the skb and let GRO do it's work.
>
> Fixes: c9e6bc644e55 ("net: add gro_cells infrastructure")
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
> ---
>  net/core/gro_cells.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> index ff8e5b64bf6b..2f8d688f9d82 100644
> --- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
> +++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> @@ -20,11 +20,20 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells, struct sk_buff *skb)
>         if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
>                 goto drop;
>
> -       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> +       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> +netif_rx:
>                 res = netif_rx(skb);
>                 goto unlock;
>         }
> +       if (skb_cloned(skb)) {
> +               struct sk_buff *n;
>
> +               n = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);

I do not think we want this skb_copy(). This is going to fail too often.

Can you remind us why we have this skb_cloned() check here ?
Re: [PATCH net] gro_cells: Avoid packet re-ordering for cloned skbs
Posted by Thomas Bogendoerfer 11 months, 1 week ago 
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:56:24 +0100
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > gro_cells_receive() passes a cloned skb directly up the stack and
> > could cause re-ordering against segments still in GRO. To avoid
> > this copy the skb and let GRO do it's work.
> >
> > Fixes: c9e6bc644e55 ("net: add gro_cells infrastructure")
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
> > ---
> >  net/core/gro_cells.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > index ff8e5b64bf6b..2f8d688f9d82 100644
> > --- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > +++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > @@ -20,11 +20,20 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >         if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
> >                 goto drop;
> >
> > -       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> > +       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> > +netif_rx:
> >                 res = netif_rx(skb);
> >                 goto unlock;
> >         }
> > +       if (skb_cloned(skb)) {
> > +               struct sk_buff *n;
> >
> > +               n = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);  
> 
> I do not think we want this skb_copy(). This is going to fail too often.

ok

> Can you remind us why we have this skb_cloned() check here ?

some fields of the ip/tcp header are going to be changed in the first gro
segment

Thomas.


-- 
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich
Re: [PATCH net] gro_cells: Avoid packet re-ordering for cloned skbs
Posted by Eric Dumazet 11 months, 1 week ago 
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:28 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
<tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:56:24 +0100
> Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> > <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > gro_cells_receive() passes a cloned skb directly up the stack and
> > > could cause re-ordering against segments still in GRO. To avoid
> > > this copy the skb and let GRO do it's work.
> > >
> > > Fixes: c9e6bc644e55 ("net: add gro_cells infrastructure")
> > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
> > > ---
> > >  net/core/gro_cells.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > index ff8e5b64bf6b..2f8d688f9d82 100644
> > > --- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > +++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > @@ -20,11 +20,20 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > >         if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
> > >                 goto drop;
> > >
> > > -       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> > > +       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> > > +netif_rx:
> > >                 res = netif_rx(skb);
> > >                 goto unlock;
> > >         }
> > > +       if (skb_cloned(skb)) {
> > > +               struct sk_buff *n;
> > >
> > > +               n = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > I do not think we want this skb_copy(). This is going to fail too often.
>
> ok
>
> > Can you remind us why we have this skb_cloned() check here ?
>
> some fields of the ip/tcp header are going to be changed in the first gro
> segment

Presumably we should test skb_header_cloned()

This means something like skb_cow_head(skb, 0) could be much more
reasonable than skb_copy().

diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
index ff8e5b64bf6b76451a69e3eae132b593c60ee204..bd8966484da3fe85d1d87bf847d3730d7ad094e5
100644
--- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
+++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells,
struct sk_buff *skb)
        if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
                goto drop;

-       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
+       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev) || skb_cow_head(skb, 0)) {
                res = netif_rx(skb);
                goto unlock;
        }
Re: [PATCH net] gro_cells: Avoid packet re-ordering for cloned skbs
Posted by Thomas Bogendoerfer 11 months ago 
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:55:18 +0100
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:28 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:56:24 +0100
> > Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> > > <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > gro_cells_receive() passes a cloned skb directly up the stack and
> > > > could cause re-ordering against segments still in GRO. To avoid
> > > > this copy the skb and let GRO do it's work.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: c9e6bc644e55 ("net: add gro_cells infrastructure")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
> > > > ---
> > > >  net/core/gro_cells.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > > index ff8e5b64bf6b..2f8d688f9d82 100644
> > > > --- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > > +++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > > @@ -20,11 +20,20 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > >         if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
> > > >                 goto drop;
> > > >
> > > > -       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> > > > +       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> > > > +netif_rx:
> > > >                 res = netif_rx(skb);
> > > >                 goto unlock;
> > > >         }
> > > > +       if (skb_cloned(skb)) {
> > > > +               struct sk_buff *n;
> > > >
> > > > +               n = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);  
> > >
> > > I do not think we want this skb_copy(). This is going to fail too often.  
> >
> > ok
> >  
> > > Can you remind us why we have this skb_cloned() check here ?  
> >
> > some fields of the ip/tcp header are going to be changed in the first gro
> > segment  
> 
> Presumably we should test skb_header_cloned()
> 
> This means something like skb_cow_head(skb, 0) could be much more
> reasonable than skb_copy().

I don't think this will work, because at that point it's skb->data points
at the IPv6 header in my test case (traffic between two namespaces connected
via ip6 tunnel over ipvlan). Correct header offsets are set after later,
when gro_cells napi routine runs.

Do you see another option ?

Thomas.

-- 
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich
Re: [PATCH net] gro_cells: Avoid packet re-ordering for cloned skbs
Posted by Eric Dumazet 11 months ago 
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 3:32 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
<tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:55:18 +0100
> Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:28 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> > <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:56:24 +0100
> > > Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> > > > <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > gro_cells_receive() passes a cloned skb directly up the stack and
> > > > > could cause re-ordering against segments still in GRO. To avoid
> > > > > this copy the skb and let GRO do it's work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: c9e6bc644e55 ("net: add gro_cells infrastructure")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  net/core/gro_cells.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > > > index ff8e5b64bf6b..2f8d688f9d82 100644
> > > > > --- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > > > +++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > > > @@ -20,11 +20,20 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > >         if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
> > > > >                 goto drop;
> > > > >
> > > > > -       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> > > > > +       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> > > > > +netif_rx:
> > > > >                 res = netif_rx(skb);
> > > > >                 goto unlock;
> > > > >         }
> > > > > +       if (skb_cloned(skb)) {
> > > > > +               struct sk_buff *n;
> > > > >
> > > > > +               n = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
> > > >
> > > > I do not think we want this skb_copy(). This is going to fail too often.
> > >
> > > ok
> > >
> > > > Can you remind us why we have this skb_cloned() check here ?
> > >
> > > some fields of the ip/tcp header are going to be changed in the first gro
> > > segment
> >
> > Presumably we should test skb_header_cloned()
> >
> > This means something like skb_cow_head(skb, 0) could be much more
> > reasonable than skb_copy().
>
> I don't think this will work, because at that point it's skb->data points
> at the IPv6 header in my test case (traffic between two namespaces connected
> via ip6 tunnel over ipvlan). Correct header offsets are set after later,
> when gro_cells napi routine runs.
>
> Do you see another option ?

Anything not attempting order-5 allocations will work :)

I would try something like that.

diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
index ff8e5b64bf6b..74416194f148 100644
--- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
+++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
 #include <linux/netdevice.h>
 #include <net/gro_cells.h>
 #include <net/hotdata.h>
+#include <net/gro.h>

 struct gro_cell {
        struct sk_buff_head     napi_skbs;
@@ -20,7 +21,7 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells,
struct sk_buff *skb)
        if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
                goto drop;

-       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
+       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
                res = netif_rx(skb);
                goto unlock;
        }
@@ -58,7 +59,11 @@ static int gro_cell_poll(struct napi_struct *napi,
int budget)
                skb = __skb_dequeue(&cell->napi_skbs);
                if (!skb)
                        break;
-               napi_gro_receive(napi, skb);
+               /* Core GRO stack does not play well with clones. */
+               if (skb_cloned(skb))
+                       gro_normal_one(napi, skb, 1);
+               else
+                       napi_gro_receive(napi, skb);
                work_done++;
        }
Re: [PATCH net] gro_cells: Avoid packet re-ordering for cloned skbs
Posted by Thomas Bogendoerfer 11 months ago 
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 15:55:26 +0100
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 3:32 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:55:18 +0100
> > Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:28 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> > > <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:56:24 +0100
> > > > Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> > > > > <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > gro_cells_receive() passes a cloned skb directly up the stack and
> > > > > > could cause re-ordering against segments still in GRO. To avoid
> > > > > > this copy the skb and let GRO do it's work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Fixes: c9e6bc644e55 ("net: add gro_cells infrastructure")
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  net/core/gro_cells.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > > > > index ff8e5b64bf6b..2f8d688f9d82 100644
> > > > > > --- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > > > > +++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> > > > > > @@ -20,11 +20,20 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > > >         if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
> > > > > >                 goto drop;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> > > > > > +       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> > > > > > +netif_rx:
> > > > > >                 res = netif_rx(skb);
> > > > > >                 goto unlock;
> > > > > >         }
> > > > > > +       if (skb_cloned(skb)) {
> > > > > > +               struct sk_buff *n;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +               n = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);  
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not think we want this skb_copy(). This is going to fail too often.  
> > > >
> > > > ok
> > > >  
> > > > > Can you remind us why we have this skb_cloned() check here ?  
> > > >
> > > > some fields of the ip/tcp header are going to be changed in the first gro
> > > > segment  
> > >
> > > Presumably we should test skb_header_cloned()
> > >
> > > This means something like skb_cow_head(skb, 0) could be much more
> > > reasonable than skb_copy().  
> >
> > I don't think this will work, because at that point it's skb->data points
> > at the IPv6 header in my test case (traffic between two namespaces connected
> > via ip6 tunnel over ipvlan). Correct header offsets are set after later,
> > when gro_cells napi routine runs.
> >
> > Do you see another option ?  
> 
> Anything not attempting order-5 allocations will work :)
> 
> I would try something like that.
> 
> diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> index ff8e5b64bf6b..74416194f148 100644
> --- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
> +++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>  #include <linux/netdevice.h>
>  #include <net/gro_cells.h>
>  #include <net/hotdata.h>
> +#include <net/gro.h>
> 
>  struct gro_cell {
>         struct sk_buff_head     napi_skbs;
> @@ -20,7 +21,7 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells,
> struct sk_buff *skb)
>         if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
>                 goto drop;
> 
> -       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> +       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
>                 res = netif_rx(skb);
>                 goto unlock;
>         }
> @@ -58,7 +59,11 @@ static int gro_cell_poll(struct napi_struct *napi,
> int budget)
>                 skb = __skb_dequeue(&cell->napi_skbs);
>                 if (!skb)
>                         break;
> -               napi_gro_receive(napi, skb);
> +               /* Core GRO stack does not play well with clones. */
> +               if (skb_cloned(skb))
> +                       gro_normal_one(napi, skb, 1);
> +               else
> +                       napi_gro_receive(napi, skb);
>                 work_done++;
>         }

works perfectly, thank you. I've sent a v2 of the fix.

Thomas.

-- 
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew McDonald, Werner Knoblich
Re: [PATCH net] gro_cells: Avoid packet re-ordering for cloned skbs
Posted by Alexander Lobakin 11 months, 1 week ago 
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 13:55:18 +0100

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 12:28 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
> <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:56:24 +0100
>> Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2025 at 3:27 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer
>>> <tbogendoerfer@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> gro_cells_receive() passes a cloned skb directly up the stack and
>>>> could cause re-ordering against segments still in GRO. To avoid
>>>> this copy the skb and let GRO do it's work.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: c9e6bc644e55 ("net: add gro_cells infrastructure")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tbogendoerfer@suse.de>
>>>> ---
>>>>  net/core/gro_cells.c | 11 ++++++++++-
>>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
>>>> index ff8e5b64bf6b..2f8d688f9d82 100644
>>>> --- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
>>>> +++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
>>>> @@ -20,11 +20,20 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>         if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
>>>>                 goto drop;
>>>>
>>>> -       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
>>>> +       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
>>>> +netif_rx:
>>>>                 res = netif_rx(skb);
>>>>                 goto unlock;
>>>>         }
>>>> +       if (skb_cloned(skb)) {
>>>> +               struct sk_buff *n;
>>>>
>>>> +               n = skb_copy(skb, GFP_KERNEL);
>>>
>>> I do not think we want this skb_copy(). This is going to fail too often.
>>
>> ok
>>
>>> Can you remind us why we have this skb_cloned() check here ?
>>
>> some fields of the ip/tcp header are going to be changed in the first gro
>> segment
> 
> Presumably we should test skb_header_cloned()
> 
> This means something like skb_cow_head(skb, 0) could be much more
> reasonable than skb_copy().

Maybe skb_try_make_writable() would fit?

> 
> diff --git a/net/core/gro_cells.c b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> index ff8e5b64bf6b76451a69e3eae132b593c60ee204..bd8966484da3fe85d1d87bf847d3730d7ad094e5
> 100644
> --- a/net/core/gro_cells.c
> +++ b/net/core/gro_cells.c
> @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ int gro_cells_receive(struct gro_cells *gcells,
> struct sk_buff *skb)
>         if (unlikely(!(dev->flags & IFF_UP)))
>                 goto drop;
> 
> -       if (!gcells->cells || skb_cloned(skb) || netif_elide_gro(dev)) {
> +       if (!gcells->cells || netif_elide_gro(dev) || skb_cow_head(skb, 0)) {
>                 res = netif_rx(skb);
>                 goto unlock;
>         }

Thanks,
Olek

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.