netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] bpf: add PHYS_DEV prog type for early driver filter

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:02:00 -0700
From:	Brenden Blanco <bblanco@...mgrid.com>
To:	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, tom@...bertland.com,
	alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, ogerlitz@...lanox.com,
	daniel@...earbox.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, ecree@...arflare.com,
	john.fastabend@...il.com, tgraf@...g.ch, johannes@...solutions.net,
	eranlinuxmellanox@...il.com, lorenzo@...gle.com,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/5] bpf: add PHYS_DEV prog type for early driver
 filter

On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 02:33:40PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 12:36:14 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > > +/* user return codes for PHYS_DEV prog type */
> > > +enum bpf_phys_dev_action {
> > > +	BPF_PHYS_DEV_DROP,
> > > +	BPF_PHYS_DEV_OK,
> > > +};  
> > 
> > I can imagine these extra return codes:
> > 
> >  BPF_PHYS_DEV_MODIFIED,   /* Packet page/payload modified */
> >  BPF_PHYS_DEV_STOLEN,     /* E.g. forward use-case */
> >  BPF_PHYS_DEV_SHARED,     /* Queue for async processing, e.g. tcpdump use-case */
> > 
> > The "STOLEN" and "SHARED" use-cases require some refcnt manipulations,
> > which we can look at when we get that far...
> 
> I want to point out something which is quite FUNDAMENTAL, for
> understanding these return codes (and network stack).
> 
> 
> At driver RX time, the network stack basically have two ways of
> building an SKB, which is send up the stack.
> 
> Option-A (fastest): The packet page is writable. The SKB can be
> allocated and skb->data/head can point directly to the page.  And
> we place/write skb_shared_info in the end/tail-room. (This is done by
> calling build_skb()).
> 
> Option-B (slower): The packet page is read-only.  The SKB cannot point
> skb->data/head directly to the page, because skb_shared_info need to be
> written into skb->end (slightly hidden via skb_shinfo() casting).  To
> get around this, a separate piece of memory is allocated (speedup by
> __alloc_page_frag) for pointing skb->data/head, so skb_shared_info can
> be written. (This is done when calling netdev/napi_alloc_skb()).
>   Drivers then need to copy over packet headers, and assign + adjust
> skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[0] offset to skip copied headers.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately most drivers use option-B.  Due to cost of calling the
> page allocator.  It is only slightly most expensive to get a larger
> compound page from the page allocator, which then can be partitioned into
> page-fragments, thus amortizing the page alloc cost.  Unfortunately the
> cost is added later, when constructing the SKB.
>  Another reason for option-B, is that archs with expensive IOMMU
> requirements (like PowerPC), don't need to dma_unmap on every packet,
> but only on the compound page level.
> 
> Side-note: Most drivers have a "copy-break" optimization.  Especially
> for option-B, when copying header data anyhow. For small packet, one
> might as well free (or recycle) the RX page, if header size fits into
> the newly allocated memory (for skb_shared_info).
> 
> 
> For the early filter drop (DDoS use-case), it does not matter that the
> packet-page is read-only.
> 
> BUT for the future XDP (eXpress Data Path) use-case it does matter.  If
> we ever want to see speeds comparable to DPDK, then drivers to
> need to implement option-A, as this allow forwarding at the packet-page
> level.
> 
> I hope, my future page-pool facility can remove/hide the cost calling
> the page allocator.
> 
Can't wait! This will open up a lot of doors.
> 
> Back to the return codes, thus:
> -------------------------------
> BPF_PHYS_DEV_SHARED requires driver use option-B, when constructing
> the SKB, and treat packet data as read-only.
> 
> BPF_PHYS_DEV_MODIFIED requires driver to provide a writable packet-page.
I understand the driver/hw requirement, but the codes themselves I think
need some tweaking. For instance, if the packet is both modified and
forwarded, should the flags be ORed together? Or is the need for this
return code made obsolete if the driver knows ahead of time via struct
bpf_prog flags that the prog intends to modify the packet, and can set
up the page accordingly?
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
>   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
>   Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
>   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer