Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2024 21:27:07 +0200
From: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org>
To: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc: network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
 kuba@...nel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
 Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>, Chuck Lever III
 <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
 Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>, Tyler Fanelli <tfanelli@...hat.com>,
 Pengtao He <hepengtao@...omi.com>,
 "linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
 Samba Technical <samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/5] net: In-kernel QUIC implementation with
 Userspace handshake

Am 20.04.24 um 21:32 schrieb Xin Long:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 3:19 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:51 PM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Xin Long,
>>>
>>>>> But I think its unavoidable for the ALPN and SNI fields on
>>>>> the server side. As every service tries to use udp port 443
>>>>> and somehow that needs to be shared if multiple services want to
>>>>> use it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess on the acceptor side we would need to somehow detach low level
>>>>> udp struct sock from the logical listen struct sock.
>>>>>
>>>>> And quic_do_listen_rcv() would need to find the correct logical listening
>>>>> socket and call quic_request_sock_enqueue() on the logical socket
>>>>> not the lowlevel udo socket. The same for all stuff happening after
>>>>> quic_request_sock_enqueue() at the end of quic_do_listen_rcv.
>>>>>
>>>> The implementation allows one low level UDP sock to serve for multiple
>>>> QUIC socks.
>>>>
>>>> Currently, if your 3 quic applications listen to the same address:port
>>>> with SO_REUSEPORT socket option set, the incoming connection will choose
>>>> one of your applications randomly with hash(client_addr+port) vi
>>>> reuseport_select_sock() in quic_sock_lookup().
>>>>
>>>> It should be easy to do a further match with ALPN between these 3 quic
>>>> socks that listens to the same address:port to get the right quic sock,
>>>> instead of that randomly choosing.
>>>
>>> Ah, that sounds good.
>>>
>>>> The problem is to parse the TLS Client_Hello message to get the ALPN in
>>>> quic_sock_lookup(), which is not a proper thing to do in kernel, and
>>>> might be rejected by networking maintainers, I need to check with them.
>>>
>>> Is the reassembling of CRYPTO frames done in the kernel or
>>> userspace? Can you point me to the place in the code?
>> In quic_inq_handshake_tail() in kernel, for Client Initial packet
>> is processed when calling accept(), this is the path:
>>
>> quic_accept()-> quic_accept_sock_init() -> quic_packet_process() ->
>> quic_packet_handshake_process() -> quic_frame_process() ->
>> quic_frame_crypto_process() -> quic_inq_handshake_tail().
>>
>> Note that it's with the accept sock, not the listen sock.
>>
>>>
>>> If it's really impossible to do in C code maybe
>>> registering a bpf function in order to allow a listener
>>> to check the intial quic packet and decide if it wants to serve
>>> that connection would be possible as last resort?
>> That's a smart idea! man.
>> I think the bpf hook in reuseport_select_sock() is meant to do such
>> selection.
>>
>> For the Client initial packet (the only packet you need to handle),
>> I double you will need to do the reassembling, as Client Hello TLS message
>> is always less than 400 byte in my env.
>>
>> But I think you need to do the decryption for the Client initial packet
>> before decoding it then parsing the TLS message from its crypto frame.
> I created this patch:
> 
> https://github.com/lxin/quic/commit/aee0b7c77df3f39941f98bb901c73fdc560befb8
> 
> to do this decryption in quic_sock_look() before calling
> reuseport_select_sock(), so that it provides the bpf selector with
> a plain-text QUIC initial packet:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9000#section-17.2.2
> 
> If it's complex for you to do the decryption for the initial packet in
> the bpf selector, I will apply this patch. Please let me know.

I guess in addition to quic_server_handshake(), which is called
after accept(), there should be quic_server_prepare_listen()
(and something similar for in kernel servers) that setup the reuseport
magic for the socket, so that it's not needed in every application.

It seems there is only a single ebpf program possible per
reuseport group, so there has to be just a single one.

But is it possible for in kernel servers to also register an epbf program?

metze

Powered by blists - more mailing lists