Message-ID: <874kg9m8t1.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:58:50 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/5] libbpf: add low level TC-BPF API

Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:06 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:47 AM Alexei Starovoitov
>> > <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:38:06AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:02:14AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>> >> > > On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:27 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > [...]
>> >> > >
>> >> > > All of these things are messy because of tc legacy. bpf tried to follow tc style
>> >> > > with cls and act distinction and it didn't quite work. cls with
>> >> > > direct-action is the only
>> >> > > thing that became mainstream while tc style attach wasn't really addressed.
>> >> > > There were several incidents where tc had tens of thousands of progs attached
>> >> > > because of this attach/query/index weirdness described above.
>> >> > > I think the only way to address this properly is to introduce bpf_link style of
>> >> > > attaching to tc. Such bpf_link would support ingress/egress only.
>> >> > > direction-action will be implied. There won't be any index and query
>> >> > > will be obvious.
>> >> >
>> >> > Note that we already have bpf_link support working (without support for pinning
>> >> > ofcourse) in a limited way. The ifindex, protocol, parent_id, priority, handle,
>> >> > chain_index tuple uniquely identifies a filter, so we stash this in the bpf_link
>> >> > and are able to operate on the exact filter during release.
>> >>
>> >> Except they're not unique. The library can stash them, but something else
>> >> doing detach via iproute2 or their own netlink calls will detach the prog.
>> >> This other app can attach to the same spot a different prog and now
>> >> bpf_link__destroy will be detaching somebody else prog.
>> >>
>> >> > > So I would like to propose to take this patch set a step further from
>> >> > > what Daniel said:
>> >> > > int bpf_tc_attach(prog_fd, ifindex, {INGRESS,EGRESS}):
>> >> > > and make this proposed api to return FD.
>> >> > > To detach from tc ingress/egress just close(fd).
>> >> >
>> >> > You mean adding an fd-based TC API to the kernel?
>> >>
>> >> yes.
>> >
>> > I'm totally for bpf_link-based TC attachment.
>> >
>> > But I think *also* having "legacy" netlink-based APIs will allow
>> > applications to handle older kernels in a much nicer way without extra
>> > dependency on iproute2. We have a similar situation with kprobe, where
>> > currently libbpf only supports "modern" fd-based attachment, but users
>> > periodically ask questions and struggle to figure out issues on older
>> > kernels that don't support new APIs.
>>
>> +1; I am OK with adding a new bpf_link-based way to attach TC programs,
>> but we still need to support the netlink API in libbpf.
>>
>> > So I think we'd have to support legacy TC APIs, but I agree with
>> > Alexei and Daniel that we should keep it to the simplest and most
>> > straightforward API of supporting direction-action attachments and
>> > setting up qdisc transparently (if I'm getting all the terminology
>> > right, after reading Quentin's blog post). That coincidentally should
>> > probably match how bpf_link-based TC API will look like, so all that
>> > can be abstracted behind a single bpf_link__attach_tc() API as well,
>> > right? That's the plan for dealing with kprobe right now, btw. Libbpf
>> > will detect the best available API and transparently fall back (maybe
>> > with some warning for awareness, due to inherent downsides of legacy
>> > APIs: no auto-cleanup being the most prominent one).
>>
>> Yup, SGTM: Expose both in the low-level API (in bpf.c), and make the
>> high-level API auto-detect. That way users can also still use the
>> netlink attach function if they don't want the fd-based auto-close
>> behaviour of bpf_link.
>
> So I thought a bit more about this, and it feels like the right move
> would be to expose only higher-level TC BPF API behind bpf_link. It
> will keep the API complexity and amount of APIs that libbpf will have
> to support to the minimum, and will keep the API itself simple:
> direct-attach with the minimum amount of input arguments. By not
> exposing low-level APIs we also table the whole bpf_tc_cls_attach_id
> design discussion, as we now can keep as much info as needed inside
> bpf_link_tc (which will embed bpf_link internally as well) to support
> detachment and possibly some additional querying, if needed.

But then there would be no way for the caller to explicitly select a
mechanism? I.e., if I write a BPF program using this mechanism targeting
a 5.12 kernel, I'll get netlink attachment, which can stick around when
I do bpf_link__disconnect(). But then if the kernel gets upgraded to
support bpf_link for TC programs I'll suddenly transparently get
bpf_link and the attachments will go away unless I pin them. This
seems... less than ideal?

If we expose the low-level API I can elect to just use this if I know I
want netlink behaviour, but if bpf_program__attach_tc() is the only API
available it would at least need a flag to enforce one mode or the other
(I can see someone wanting to enforce kernel bpf_link semantics as well,
so a flag for either mode seems reasonable?).

-Toke

Powered by blists - more mailing lists