Message-ID: <20161029014219.GA58105@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Oct 2016 18:42:23 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:     Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>, htejun@...com,
        daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...com, davem@...emloft.net,
        kafai@...com, fw@...len.de, harald@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, sargun@...gun.me, cgroups@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/6] Add eBPF hooks for cgroups

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 01:28:39PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> Hi Alexei,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 08:35:04PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:59:33PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 12:14:08PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > >   Dumping programs once they are installed is problematic because of
> > > >   the internal optimizations done to the eBPF program during its
> > > >   lifetime. Also, the references to maps etc. would need to be
> > > >   restored during the dump.
> > > > 
> > > >   Just exposing whether or not a program is attached would be
> > > >   trivial to do, however, most easily through another bpf(2)
> > > >   command. That can be added later on though.
> > > 
> > > I don't know if anyone told you, but during last netconf, this topic
> > > took a bit of time of discussion and it was controversial, I would say
> > > 1/3 of netdev hackers there showed their concerns, and that's
> > > something that should not be skipped IMO.
> > 
> > Though I attended netconf over hangouts, I think it was pretty
> > clear that bpf needs 'introspection' of loaded bpf programs and it
> > was a universal desire of everyone. Not 1/3 of hackers.
> 
> Introspection is a different thing, very useful, no doubt. But this
> infrastructure is allowing way more than simple innocuous introspection.

During netconf the discussion around bpf introspection was about
making bpf more visible to user space.
This patch does cgroup+bpf infrastructure which is orthogonal.

> > As commit log says it's an orthogonal work and over the last
> > month we've been discussing pros and cons of different approaches.
> > The audit infra, tracepoints and other ideas.
> > We kept the discussion in private because, unfortunately, public
> > discussions are not fruitful due to threads like this one.
> 
> We need to understand what people are trying to solve and it what way.
> That's why we have all those conferences and places to meet and
> discuss too. Please, don't think like that, this is sending the wrong
> message to everyone here, that is kind of: bypass public discussions
> and don't take time to describe what you're doing since it is a waste
> of time. That's not good.

In general I agree that it's best to discuss technical topics
on the mainling list and resolve personal conflicts in person
during the conferences.
Unfortunately the obstructionism seen in this thread forces people
discuss in private to have constructive conversation.
Anyway, neither your reply nor mine has nothing to do with this patch set
and being typical example why I prefer to discuss bpf related
ideas in private.

> > The further points below were disputed many times in the past.
> > Let's address them one more time:
> > 
> > > path. But this is adding hooks to push bpf programs in the middle of
> > > our generic stack, this is way different domain.
> > 
> > incorrect. look at socket filters, cls_bpf.
> 
> Classic socket filters don't allow you to deploy a global policy in
> such a fine grain way as this is doing. Then, cls_bpf is fine since it
> is visible via tc command, so sysadmins can use tools they are
> familiar with to inspect policies and say "oh look, some of the
> processes I'm deploying have installed filters via cls_bpf". However,
> this approach is visible in no way.

the audit and/or tracepoint infra that is being worked on in parallel
will answer this question in full detail.
It's no different from application using seccomp to control its children
or cls_bpf doing policy enforcement of containers or xdp doing low
level filtering.
xdp has boolean "is program loaded" flag and it turned out
to be not very useful for debuggability.
It should be solved in a universal way for all bpf programs.
We're not going to add something specific to this cgroup+bpf infra,
since it will be just as clumsy as xdp's bool flag.
Once again, audit/tracepoint for bpf prog introspection is a separate
work orthogonal to this set.

> [...]
> > > around this socket code in functions so we can invoke it. I guess
> > > filtering of UDP and TCP should be good for you at this stage.
> > 
> > DanielM mentioned few times that it's not only about UDP and TCP.
> 
> OK, since this is limited to the scope of inet sockets, let's revisit
> what we have around: DCCP is hopeless, who cares. We also have SCTP,
> that is deployed by telcos in datacenters, it cannot reach that domain
> because many Internet gateways are broken for it, so you may not get
> too far with it. Arguably it would be good to have SCTP support at
> some point, but I guess this is not a priority now. Then, UDPlite
> almost comes for free since it relies on the existing UDP
> infrastructure, it's basically UDP with a bit more features. What
> else?

thank you for nice description of current state of sctp,
but it has nothing to do with this patch set. The goal is to
monitor application networking activity at L3 level.

> > > This would require more work though, but this would come with no
> > > hooks in the stack and packets will not have to consume *lots of
> > > cycles* just to be dropped before entering the socket queue.
> > 
> > packets don't consume 'lost of cycles'. This is not a typical
> > n-tuple firewall framework. Not a DoS mitigation either. Please read
> > the cover letter and earlier submissions.
> > It's a framework centered around cgroups.
> > _Nothing_ in the current stack provides cgroup based monitoring
> > and application protection. Earlier cgroupv1 controllers don't
> > scale and we really cannot have more of v1 net controllers.
> > At the same time we've been brainstorming how this patch set
> > can work with v1. It's not easy. We're not giving up though.
> > For now it's v2 only.
> > Note that another two patchsets depend on this core cgroup+bpf framework.
> 
> I saw those, I would really like to have a closer look at David
> Ahern's usecase since that skb iif mangling looks kludgy to me, and
> given this is exposing a new helper for general use, not only vrf, it
> would be good to make sure helpers provide something useful for
> everyone. So that new helper is questionable at this stage IMO. I'm
> concerned that people may start using bpf as the adhesive tape to glue
> things to solve probably design problems.

the whole point of bpf is to be the fastest glue, so that kernel people
(like you and me) move out of the way for others to make their
own architectural choices for networking, DoS, firewalls, policy,
tracing, security, sandboxing and so on.
The job of the kernel is to be the best tool and not dictate
how firewalls should be done. People who work on DoS prevention
today have to use things like DPDK not only for performance reasons,
but due to flexible design choices and ability to change them quickly.
This cgroup+bpf set is a fundamental building block for all sorts of
other things like lsm, vrf, port binding policy and whatever
comes next. bpf is really nothing but the glue.

> The other patchset, I guess you refer to the new lsm module: I would
> suggest we address one thing at a time, I guess he can starts without
> relying on this chunk, as it can follow up later anyway.

lsm+bpf infra is only usable either via seccomp or via cgroup.
For our use case seccomp way is a non starter, since we manage
containers. Hence cgroup must be from the beginning. Therefore strong
dependency on this set.

> In general, I think bpf is very useful, but I think we have to
> accomodate new things in a way that makes sense into what we have. We
> have traditionally followed an "add in-kernel infrastructured +
> provide userspace interface as control plane" approach for long time.
> I have concerns (and my impression is that others were concerned in
> netconf too) on if we can go from the existing approach to a fully
> uninfrastructured use-bpf-everywhere, from one day to another without
> even taking the time to discuss the consequences of this decision.

bpf is already used everywhere and the work on bpf visibility is
orthogonal. Arguing that cgroup+bpf is no good without it is only
going to stall progress of everything that needs to be cgroup aware.
Note we already have experience dealing with cgroups from cls_bpf
via bpf_skb_under_cgroup() helper. And it didn't scale.
Hence this patch set.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists