[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180502075656.5f2e6bd1@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 07:56:56 +0200
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>
Cc: Toshiaki Makita <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 6/9] veth: Add ndo_xdp_xmit
On Wed, 2 May 2018 12:33:47 +0900
Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com> wrote:
> On 18/05/01 (火) 17:14, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 May 2018 10:02:01 +0900 Toshiaki Makita
> > <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2018/05/01 2:27, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 19:52:40 +0900 Toshiaki Makita
> >>> <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2018/04/26 5:24, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 23:39:20 +0900 Toshiaki Makita
> >>>>> <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +static int veth_xdp_xmit(struct net_device *dev, struct
[...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure you can make this assumption, that xdp_frames
> >>>>> coming from another device driver uses a refcnt based memory
> >>>>> model. But maybe I'm confused, as this looks like an SKB
> >>>>> receive path, but in the ndo_xdp_xmit().
> >>>>
> >>>> I find this path similar to cpumap, which creates skb from
> >>>> redirected xdp frame. Once it is converted to skb, skb head is
> >>>> freed by page_frag_free, so anyway I needed to get the
> >>>> refcount here regardless of memory model.
> >>>
> >>> Yes I know, I wrote cpumap ;-)
> >>>
> >>> First of all, I don't want to see such xdp_frame to SKB
> >>> conversion code in every driver. Because that increase the
> >>> chances of errors. And when looking at the details, then it
> >>> seems that you have made the mistake of making it possible to
> >>> leak xdp_frame info to the SKB (which cpumap takes into
> >>> account).
> >>
> >> Do you mean leaving xdp_frame in skb->head is leaking something?
> >> how?
> >
> > Like commit 97e19cce05e5 ("bpf: reserve xdp_frame size in xdp
> > headroom") and commit 6dfb970d3dbd ("xdp: avoid leaking info stored
> > in frame data on page reuse").
>
> Thanks for sharing the info.
>
> > But this time, the concern is a bpf_prog attached at TC/bpf_cls
> > level, that can that can adjust head via bpf_skb_change_head (for
> > XDP it is bpf_xdp_adjust_head) into the area used by xdp_frame. As
> > described in https://git.kernel.org/davem/net-next/c/6dfb970d3dbd in
> > is not super critical at the moment, as this _currently_ runs as
> > CAP_SYS_ADMIN, but we would like to move towards CAP_NET_ADMIN.
>
> What I don't get is why special casing xdp_frame info. My assumption is
> that the area above skb->mac_header is uninit kernel memory and should
> not be readable by unprivileged users anyway. So I didn't clear the area
> at this point.
This is also my understanding. But Alexei explicitly asked me to handle
this xdp_frame info case. I assume that more work is required for the
transition from CAP_SYS_ADMIN to CAP_NET_ADMIN, we just don't want to
add more/new code that makes this more difficult.
> >>> Second, I think the refcnt scheme here is wrong. The xdp_frame
> >>> should be "owned" by XDP and have the proper refcnt to deliver
> >>> it directly to the network stack.
> >>>
> >>> Third, if we choose that we want a fallback, in-case XDP is not
> >>> enabled on egress dev (but it have an ndo_xdp_xmit), then it
> >>> should be placed in the generic/core code. E.g.
> >>> __bpf_tx_xdp_map() could look at the return code from
> >>> dev->netdev_ops->ndo_xdp() and create an SKB. (Hint, this would
> >>> make it easy to implement TX bulking towards the dev).
> >>
> >> Right, this is a much cleaner way.
> >>
> >> Although I feel like we should add this fallback for veth because
> >> it requires something which is different from other drivers
> >> (enabling XDP on the peer device of the egress device),
> >
> > (This is why I Cc'ed Tariq...)
> >
> > This is actually a general problem with the xdp "xmit" side (and not
> > specific to veth driver). The problem exists for other drivers as
> > well.
> >
> > The problem is that a driver can implement ndo_xdp_xmit(), but the
> > driver might not have allocated the necessary XDP TX-queue resources
> > yet (or it might not be possible due to system resource limits).
> >
> > The current "hack" is to load an XDP prog on the egress device, and
> > then assume that this cause the driver to also allocate the XDP
> > ndo_xdo_xmit side HW resources. This is IMHO a wrong assumption.
> >
> > We need a more generic way to test if a net_device is "ready/enabled"
> > for handling xdp_frames via ndo_xdp_xmit. And Tariq had some ideas
> > on how to implement this...
>
> My assumption on REDIRECT requirement came from this.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git/commit/?id=306da4e685b
Yes, I wrote that.
> I guess you are saying thing are changing, and having an XDP program
> attached on the egress device is no longer generally sufficient. Looking
> forward to Tariq's solution.
Yes, (hopefully) things are changing. Loading a dummy XDP program to
enable ndo_xdp_xmit, turned out to be a bad model, for all the reasons
I listed.
I hope Tariq find some time to work on this ... ;-)
> Toshiaki Makita
>
> >
> > My opinion is that it is a waste of (HW/mem) resources to always
> > allocate resources for ndo_xdp_xmit when loading an XDP program.
> > Because what if my use-cases are XDP_DROP DDoS filter, or CPUMAP
> > redirect load-balancer, then I don't want/need ndo_xdp_xmit. E.g.
> > today using ixgbe on machines with more than 96 CPUs, will fail due
> > to limited TX queue resources. Thus, blocking the mentioned
> > use-cases.
> >
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists