[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <583E3EF4.7030107@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:52:36 -0800
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
Cc: 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 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
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.
.John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists