netdev - Re: xdp_redirect ifindex vs port. Was: best API for returning/setting egress port?

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: <20170426002610.eihwmz4knbmrolfw@ast-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 17:26:11 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org" <xdp-newbies@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Subject: Re: xdp_redirect ifindex vs port. Was: best API for
 returning/setting egress port?

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 11:34:53AM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > Note the very first bpf patchset years ago contained the port table
> > abstraction. ovs has concept of vports as well. These two very
> > different projects needed port table to provide a layer of
> > indirection between ifindex==netdev and virtual port number.
> > This is still the case and I'd like to see this port table to be
> > implemented for both cls_bpf and xdp. In that sense xdp is not
> > special.
> 
> Glad to hear you want to see this implemented, I will start coding on
> this then.  Good point with cls_bpf, I was planning to make this port
> table strongly connected to XDP, guess I should also think of cls_bpf.

perfect.
I think we should try to make all additions to bpf networking world
to be usable for both tc and xdp, since both are actively used and
it wouldn't be great to have cool feature for one, but not the other.
I think port table is an excellent candidate that applies to both.

> I'm not worried about the DROP case, I agree that is fine (as you also
> say).  The problem is unintentionally sending a packet to a wrong
> ifindex.  This is clearly an eBPF program error, BUT with XDP this
> becomes a very hard to debug program error.  With TC-redirect/cls_bpf
> we can tcpdump the packets, with XDP there is no visibility into this
> happening (the NSA is going to love this "feature").  Maybe we could add
> yet-another tracepoint to allow debugging this.  My proposal that we
> simply remove the possibility for such program errors, by as you say
> move the validation from run-time into static insertion-time, via a
> port table.

I think lack of tcpdump-like debugging in xdp is a separate issue.
As I was saying in the other thread we have trivial 'xdpdump' kern+user
app that emits pcap file, but it's too specific to how we use
tail_calls+prog_array in our xdp setup. I'm working on the program
chaining that will be generic and allow us transparently add multiple
xdp or tc progs to the same attachment point and will allow us to
do 'xdpdump' at any point of this pipeline, so debugging of what
happened to the packet will be easier and done in the same way
for both tc and xdp.
btw in our experience working with both tc and xdp the tc+bpf was
actually harder to use and more bug prone.