Message-ID: <CAADnVQLJBiB7pWDTDNgQW_an+YoB61xkNEsa5g8p6zTy-mAG7Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jul 2023 13:34:06 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Daniel Rosenberg <drosen@...gle.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>,
        Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>,
        Mykola Lysenko <mykolal@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Android Kernel Team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] bpf: Allow NULL buffers in bpf_dynptr_slice(_rw)

On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 11:11 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 10:50:14 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 10:18 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > you're still missing the point. Pls read the whole patch series.
> > >
> > > Could you just tell me what the point is then? The "series" is one
> > > patch plus some tiny selftests. I don't see any documentation for
> > > how dynptrs are supposed to work either.
> > >
> > > As far as I can grasp this makes the "copy buffer" optional from
> > > the kfunc-API perspective (of bpf_dynptr_slice()).
> > >
> > > > It is _not_ input validation.
> > > > skb_copy_bits is a slow path. One extra check doesn't affect
> > > > performance at all. So 'fast paths' isn't a valid argument here.
> > > > The code is reusing
> > > >         if (likely(hlen - offset >= len))
> > > >                 return (void *)data + offset;
> > > > which _is_ the fast path.
> > > >
> > > > What you're requesting is to copy paste
> > > > the whole __skb_header_pointer into __skb_header_pointer2.
> > > > Makes no sense.
> > >
> > > No, Alexei, the whole point of skb_header_pointer() is to pass
> > > the secondary buffer, to make header parsing dependable.
> >
> > of course. No one argues about that.
> >
> > > Passing NULL buffer to skb_header_pointer() is absolutely nonsensical.
> >
> > Quick grep through the code proves you wrong:
> > drivers/net/ethernet/broadcom/bnxt/bnxt.c
> > __skb_header_pointer(NULL, start, sizeof(*hp), skb->data,
> >                      skb_headlen(skb), NULL);
> >
> > was done before this patch. It's using __ variant on purpose
> > and explicitly passing skb==NULL to exactly trigger that line
> > to deliberately avoid the slow path.
> >
> > Another example:
> > drivers/net/ethernet/intel/ixgbevf/ixgbevf_main.c
> > skb_header_pointer(skb, 0, 0, NULL);
> >
> > This one I'm not sure about. Looks buggy.
>
> These are both Tx path for setting up offloads, Linux doesn't request
> offloads for headers outside of the linear part. The ixgbevf code is
> completely pointless, as you say.
>
> In general drivers are rarely a source of high quality code examples.
> Having been directly involved in the bugs that lead to the bnxt code
> being written - I was so happy that the driver started parsing Tx
> packets *at all*, so I wasn't too fussed by the minor problems :(
>
> > > It should *not* be supported. We had enough prod problems with people
> > > thinking that the entire header will be in the linear portion.
> > > Then either the NIC can't parse the header, someone enables jumbo,
> > > disables GRO, adds new HW, adds encap, etc etc and things implode.
> >
> > I don't see how this is related.
> > NULL buffer allows to get a linear pointer and explicitly avoids
> > slow path when it's not linear.
>
> Direct packet access via skb->data is there for those who want high
> speed 🤷️

skb->data/data_end approach unfortunately doesn't work that well.
Too much verifier fighting. That's why dynptr was introduced.

>
> > > If you want to support it in BPF that's up to you, but I think it's
> > > entirely reasonable for me to request that you don't do such things
> > > in general networking code. The function is 5 LoC, so a local BPF
> > > copy seems fine. Although I'd suggest skb_header_pointer_misguided()
> > > rather than __skb_header_pointer2() as the name :)
> >
> > If you insist we can, but bnxt is an example that buffer==NULL is
> > a useful concept for networking and not bpf specific.
> > It also doesn't make "people think the header is linear" any worse.
>
> My worry is that people will think that whether the buffer is needed or
> not depends on _their program_, rather than on the underlying platform.
> So if it works in testing without the buffer - the buffer must not be
> required for their use case.

Are you concerned about bpf progs breaking this way?
I thought you're worried about the driver misusing
skb_header_pointer() with buffer==NULL.

We can remove !buffer check as in the attached patch,
but I don't quite see how it would improve driver quality.

Download attachment "0001-bpf-net-Introduce-skb_pointer_if_linear.patch" of type "application/octet-stream" (2125 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists