netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH v5 0/6] XDP for virtio

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]

Message-ID: <20161208193814.GA1954@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:38:16 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     john.fastabend@...il.com, daniel@...earbox.net, mst@...hat.com,
        shm@...ulusnetworks.com, tgraf@...g.ch, john.r.fastabend@...el.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v5 0/6] XDP for virtio_net

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 02:17:02PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
> Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 12:10:47 -0800
> 
> > This implements virtio_net for the mergeable buffers and big_packet
> > modes. I tested this with vhost_net running on qemu and did not see
> > any issues. For testing num_buf > 1 I added a hack to vhost driver
> > to only but 100 bytes per buffer.
>  ...
> 
> So where are we with this?
> 
> I'm not too thrilled with the idea of making XDP_TX optional or
> something like that.  If someone enables XDP, there is a tradeoff.
> 
> I also have reservations about the idea to make jumbo frames work
> without giving XDP access to the whole packet.  If it wants to push or
> pop a header, it might need to know the whole packet length.  How will
> you pass that to the XDP program?
> 
> Some kinds of encapsulation require trailers, thus preclusing access
> to the entire packet precludes those kinds of transformations.

+1

> This is why we want simple, linear, buffer access for XDP.
> 
> Even the most seemingly minor exception turns into a huge complicated
> mess.

+1

and from the other thread:
> > Can't we disable XDP_TX somehow? Many people might only want RX drop,
> > and extra queues are not always there.
> >
> 
> Alexei, Daniel, any thoughts on this?

I don't like it.

> I know we were trying to claim some base level of feature support for
> all XDP drivers. I am sympathetic to this argument though for DDOS we
> do not need XDP_TX support. And virtio can become queue constrained
> in some cases.

especially for ddos case doing lro/gro is not helpful.
I frankly don't see a use case where you'd want to steer a packet
all the way into VM just to drop them there?
Without XDP_TX it's too crippled. adjust_head() won't be possible,
packet mangling would have to be disabled and so on.
If xdp program doesn't see raw packet it can only parse the headers of
this jumbo meta-packet and drop it, but for virtio it's really too late.
ddos protection needs to be done at the earliest hw nic receive.
I think if driver claims xdp support it needs to support
drop/pass/tx and adjust_head. For metadata passing up into stack from xdp
we need adjust_head, for encap/decap we need it too. And lro is in the way
of such transformations.
We struggled a lot with cls_bpf due to all metadata inside skb that needs
to be kept correct. Feeding non-raw packets into xdp is a rat hole.