Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:57:25 -0800
From:   John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, davem@...emloft.net,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, tom@...bertland.com,
        roopa@...ulusnetworks.com, hannes@...essinduktion.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 3/4] bpf: BPF for lightweight tunnel
 infrastructure

On 16-11-29 09:37 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 06:52:36PM -0800, John Fastabend wrote:
>> On 16-11-29 04:15 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 02:21:22PM +0100, Thomas Graf wrote:
>>>> Registers new BPF program types which correspond to the LWT hooks:
>>>>   - BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_IN   => dst_input()
>>>>   - BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_OUT  => dst_output()
>>>>   - BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT_XMIT => lwtunnel_xmit()
>>>>
>>>> The separate program types are required to differentiate between the
>>>> capabilities each LWT hook allows:
>>>>
>>>>  * Programs attached to dst_input() or dst_output() are restricted and
>>>>    may only read the data of an skb. This prevent modification and
>>>>    possible invalidation of already validated packet headers on receive
>>>>    and the construction of illegal headers while the IP headers are
>>>>    still being assembled.
>>>>
>>>>  * Programs attached to lwtunnel_xmit() are allowed to modify packet
>>>>    content as well as prepending an L2 header via a newly introduced
>>>>    helper bpf_skb_push(). This is safe as lwtunnel_xmit() is invoked
>>>>    after the IP header has been assembled completely.
>>>>
>>>> All BPF programs receive an skb with L3 headers attached and may return
>>>> one of the following error codes:
>>>>
>>>>  BPF_OK - Continue routing as per nexthop
>>>>  BPF_DROP - Drop skb and return EPERM
>>>>  BPF_REDIRECT - Redirect skb to device as per redirect() helper.
>>>>                 (Only valid in lwtunnel_xmit() context)
>>>>
>>>> The return codes are binary compatible with their TC_ACT_
>>>> relatives to ease compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
>>> ...
>>>> +#define LWT_BPF_MAX_HEADROOM 128
>>>
>>> why 128?
>>> btw I'm thinking for XDP to use 256, so metadata can be stored in there.
>>>
>>
>> hopefully not too off-topic but for XDP I would like to see this get
> 
> definitely off-topic. lwt->headroom is existing concept. Too late
> to do anything about it.
> 
>> passed down with the program. It would be more generic and drivers could
>> configure the headroom on demand and more importantly verify that a
>> program pushing data is not going to fail at runtime.
> 
> For xdp I think it will be problematic, since we'd have to check for
> that value at prog array access to make sure tailcalls are not broken.
> Mix and match won't be possible.
> So what does 'configure the headroom on demand' buys us?
> Isn't it much easier to tell all drivers "always reserve this much" ?
> We burn the page anyway.
> If it's configurable per driver, then we'd need an api
> to retrieve it. Yet the program author doesn't care what the value is.
> If program needs to do udp encap, it will try do it. No matter what.
> If xdp_adjust_head() helper fails, the program will likely decide
> to drop the packet. In some cases it may decide to punt to stack
> for further processing, but for high performance dataplane code
> it's highly unlikely.
> If it's configurable to something that is not cache line boundary
> hw dma performance may suffer and so on.
> So I see only cons in such 'configurable headroom' and propose
> to have fixed 256 bytes headroom for XDP
> which is enough for any sensible encap and metadata.
> 

OK I'm convinced let it be fixed at some conservative value.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists