Netdev Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
To: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>
Cc: "Maciej Żenczykowski" <maze@google.com>,
"Saeed Mahameed" <saeed@kernel.org>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <borkmann@iogearbox.net>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
BPF-dev-list <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Lorenzo Bianconi" <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>,
"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"Shaun Crampton" <shaun@tigera.io>,
"David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Marek Majkowski" <marek@cloudflare.com>,
brouer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: BPF redirect API design issue for BPF-prog MTU feedback?
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:49:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200921144953.6456d47d@carbon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACAyw9-v_o+gPUpC-R9SXsfzMywrdGsWV13Nk=tx2aS-fEBFYg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:37:18 +0100
Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 00:06, Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is a good point. As bpf_skb_adjust_room() can just be run after
> > > bpf_redirect() call, then a MTU check in bpf_redirect() actually
> > > doesn't make much sense. As clever/bad BPF program can then avoid the
> > > MTU check anyhow. This basically means that we have to do the MTU
> > > check (again) on kernel side anyhow to catch such clever/bad BPF
> > > programs. (And I don't like wasting cycles on doing the same check two
> > > times).
> >
> > If you get rid of the check in bpf_redirect() you might as well get
> > rid of *all* the checks for excessive mtu in all the helpers that
> > adjust packet size one way or another way. They *all* then become
> > useless overhead.
> >
> > I don't like that. There may be something the bpf program could do to
> > react to the error condition (for example in my case, not modify
> > things and just let the core stack deal with things - which will
> > probably just generate packet too big icmp error).
> >
> > btw. right now our forwarding programs first adjust the packet size
> > then call bpf_redirect() and almost immediately return what it
> > returned.
> >
> > but this could I think easily be changed to reverse the ordering, so
> > we wouldn't increase packet size before the core stack was informed we
> > would be forwarding via a different interface.
>
> We do the same, except that we also use XDP_TX when appropriate. This
> complicates the matter, because there is no helper call we could
> return an error from.
Do notice that my MTU work is focused on TC-BPF. For XDP-redirect the
MTU check is done in xdp_ok_fwd_dev() via __xdp_enqueue(), which also
happens too late to give BPF-prog knowledge/feedback. For XDP_TX I
audited the drivers when I implemented xdp_buff.frame_sz, and they
handled (or I added) handling against max HW MTU. E.g. mlx5 [1].
[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc6/source/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/xdp.c#L267
> My preference would be to have three helpers: get MTU for a device,
> redirect ctx to a device (with MTU check), resize ctx (without MTU
> check) but that doesn't work with XDP_TX. Your idea of doing checks
> in redirect and adjust_room is pragmatic and seems easier to
> implement.
I do like this plan/proposal (with 3 helpers), but it is not possible
with current API. The main problem is the current bpf_redirect API
doesn't provide the ctx, so we cannot do the check in the BPF-helper.
Are you saying we should create a new bpf_redirect API (that incl packet ctx)?
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-21 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-17 12:38 Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-17 12:54 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2020-09-17 19:11 ` Saeed Mahameed
2020-09-18 10:00 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-18 10:34 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2020-09-18 23:06 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2020-09-21 10:37 ` Lorenz Bauer
2020-09-21 12:49 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer [this message]
2020-09-21 15:08 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-09-21 16:21 ` Marek Zavodsky
2020-09-21 21:17 ` Willem de Bruijn
2020-09-22 9:15 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-21 16:26 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-22 6:56 ` Eyal Birger
2020-09-21 18:04 ` John Fastabend
2020-10-06 11:45 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-21 10:42 ` Lorenz Bauer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200921144953.6456d47d@carbon \
--to=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=borkmann@iogearbox.net \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
--cc=lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com \
--cc=marek@cloudflare.com \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=saeed@kernel.org \
--cc=shaun@tigera.io \
--subject='Re: BPF redirect API design issue for BPF-prog MTU feedback?' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).