[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58F67D15.3050308@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:54:45 -0700
From: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org" <xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: XDP question: best API for returning/setting egress port?
On 17-04-18 12:58 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>
> As I argued in NetConf presentation[1] (from slide #9) we need a port
> mapping table (instead of using ifindex'es). Both for supporting
> other "port" types than net_devices (think sockets), and for
> sandboxing what XDP can bypass.
>
> I want to create a new XDP action called XDP_REDIRECT, that instruct
> XDP to send the xdp_buff to another "port" (get translated into a
> net_device, or something else depending on internal port type).
>
> Looking at the userspace/eBPF interface, I'm wondering what is the
> best API for "returning" this port number from eBPF?
>
> The options I see is:
>
> 1) Split-up the u32 action code, and e.g let the high-16-bit be the
> port number and lower-16bit the (existing) action verdict.
>
> Pros: Simple API
> Cons: Number of ports limited to 64K
>
> 2) Extend both xdp_buff + xdp_md to contain a (u32) port number, allow
> eBPF to update xdp_md->port.
>
> Pros: Larger number of ports.
> Cons: This require some ebpf translation steps between xdp_buff <-> xdp_md.
> (see xdp_convert_ctx_access)
>
> 3) Extend only xdp_buff and create bpf_helper that set port in xdp_buff.
>
> Pros: Hides impl details, and allows helper to give eBPF code feedback
> (on e.g. if port doesn't exist any longer)
> Cons: Helper function call likely slower?
>
>
How about doing this the same way redirect is done in the tc case? I have this
patch under test,
https://github.com/jrfastab/linux/commit/e78f5425d5e3c305b4170ddd85c61c2e15359fee
that should give you some idea. It just needs a port mapping table in the
bpf_tx_xdp() call.
> (Cc'ed xdp-newbies as end-users might have an opinion on UAPI?)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists