netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH net-next V2 0/6] XDP rx handler

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5fc9ace6-0101-9b56-340e-f67105f8e34b@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:12:24 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, mst@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net-next V2 0/6] XDP rx handler

On 2018年09月06日 01:20, David Ahern wrote:
> [ sorry for the delay; focused on the nexthop RFC ]

No problem. Your comments is appreciated.

> On 8/20/18 12:34 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2018年08月18日 05:15, David Ahern wrote:
>>> On 8/15/18 9:34 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> I may miss something but BPF forbids loop. Without a loop how can we
>>>> make sure all stacked devices is enumerated correctly without knowing
>>>> the topology in advance?
>>> netdev_for_each_upper_dev_rcu
>>>
>>> BPF helpers allow programs to do lookups in kernel tables, in this case
>>> the ability to find an upper device that would receive the packet.
>> So if I understand correctly, you mean using
>> netdev_for_each_upper_dev_rcu() inside a BPF helper? If yes, I think we
>> may still need device specific logic. E.g for macvlan,
>> netdev_for_each_upper_dev_rcu() enumerates all macvlan devices on top a
>> lower device. But what we need is one of the macvlan that matches the
>> dst mac address which is similar to what XDP rx handler did. And it
>> would become more complicated if we have multiple layers of device.
> My device lookup helper takes the base port index (starting device),
> vlan protocol, vlan tag and dest mac. So, yes, the mac address is used
> to uniquely identify the stacked device.

Ok.

>
>> So let's consider a simple case, consider we have 5 macvlan devices:
>>
>> macvlan0: doing some packet filtering before passing packets to TCP/IP
>> stack
>> macvlan1: modify packets and redirect to another interface
>> macvlan2: modify packets and transmit packet back through XDP_TX
>> macvlan3: deliver packets to AF_XDP
>> macvtap0: deliver packets raw XDP to VM
>>
>> So, with XDP rx handler, what we need to just to attach five different
>> XDP programs to each macvlan device. Your idea is to do all things in
>> the root device XDP program. This looks complicated and not flexible
>> since it needs to care a lot of things, e.g adding/removing
>> actions/policies. And XDP program needs to call BPF helper that use
>> netdev_for_each_upper_dev_rcu() to work correctly with stacked device.
>>
> Stacking on top of a nic port can have all kinds of combinations of
> vlans, bonds, bridges, vlans on bonds and bridges, macvlans, etc. I
> suspect trying to install a program for layer 3 forwarding on each one
> and iteratively running the programs would kill the performance gained
> from forwarding with xdp.

Yes, the performance may drop but it's still much faster than XDP 
generic path.

One reason for the drop is the device specific logic like mac address 
matching which is also needed for the case of a single XDP program on 
the root device. For macvlan, if we allow attach XDP on macvlan, we can 
offload the mac address lookup to hardware through L2 forwarding 
offload, this can give us no performance drop I believe. The only reason 
that was introduced by XDP rx handler itself is probably the indirect 
calls. We can try to amortize them by introducing some kind of batching 
on top. For the issue of multiple XDP program iterations, for this RFC, 
if we have N stacked devices, there's no need to attach XDP program on 
each layer, the only thing that need is the XDP_PASS action in the root 
device, then you can attach XDP program on any one or some stacked 
devices on top.

So the RFC is not intended to replace any exist solution, it just 
provides some flexibility for having native XDP on stacked device (which 
is based on rx handler) and benefit from exist tools to do the 
configuration. If user want to do all things in the root device, that 
should work well without any issues.

Thanks