netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] packet: add eBPF fanout mode

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+FuTSd1Ltxp-kcZtEjM41F7MaNXJZw4ruKnFPnhub9pMeeEcA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:27:21 -0400
From:	Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
To:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] packet: add eBPF fanout mode

> [ @Willem: RH email doesn't exist anymore, I took it out, otherwise
>   every reply gets a bounce. ;) ]

Sorry for using the wrong address, Daniel.

>> Also instead of:
>>   #define PACKET_FANOUT_BPF        6
>>   #define PACKET_FANOUT_EBPF        7
>>
>> I would call them FANOUT_CBPF and FANOUT_EBPF to be unambiguous.
>> This is how bpf manpage distinguishes them.
>
> We have SO_ATTACH_FILTER and SO_ATTACH_BPF, could also be
> analogous for fanout, if we want to be consistent with the API?
>
> But C/E prefix seems okay too, how you want ...

I don't feel very strongly, either. But CBPF/EBPF is a bit more
descriptive, so let's do that.

> Btw, in case someone sets sock_flag(sk, SOCK_FILTER_LOCKED),
> perhaps we should also apply it on fanout?

Good point. With classic bpf, packet access control is fully
enforced in per-socket filters, but playing with load balancing
filters could allow an adversary to infer some information
about the dropped packets*. With eBPF and maps, access
is even more direct. Let's support locking of fanout filters in
place.

I intend to test the existing socket flag. No need to add a
separate flag for the fanout group, as far as I can see.


(*) I noticed that a similar unintended effect also causes the
PACKET_FANOUT_LB selftest to be flaky: filters on the
sockets ensure that the test only reads expected packets.
But, all traffic makes it through packet_rcv_fanout. Packets
that are later dropped by sk_filter have already incremented
rr_cur. Worst case, with 2 sockets and each accepted packet
interleaved with a dropped packet, all packets are queued on
only one socket. Test flakiness is fixed, e.g., by running in a
private network namespace. The implementation behavior
may be unexpected in other, production, environments.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html