netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] xdp: Always use a devmap for XDP

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: <87ef7urf01.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Tue, 26 Feb 2019 12:00:30 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] xdp: Always use a devmap for XDP_REDIRECT to a device

Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> writes:

> On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 13:11:02 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> writes:
>> > On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 13:37:34 -0800 Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 11:13:50 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:  
>> >> > Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com> writes:    
>> >> > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 12:56:54 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:      
>> > [...]  
>> >> > >
>> >> > > BPF programs don't obey by netns boundaries.  The fact the program is
>> >> > > verified in one ns doesn't mean this is the only ns it will be used in :(
>> >> > > Meaning if any program is using the redirect map you may need a secret
>> >> > > map in every ns.. no?      
>> >> > 
>> >> > Ah, yes, good point. Totally didn't think about the fact that load and
>> >> > attach are decoupled. Hmm, guess I'll just have to move the call to
>> >> > alloc_default_map() to the point where the program is attached to an
>> >> > interface, then...    
>> >> 
>> >> Possibly.. and you also need to handle the case where interface with a
>> >> program attached is moved, no?  
>> 
>> Yup, alloc on attach was easy enough; the moving turns out to be the
>> tricky part :)
>> 
>> > True, we need to handle if e.g. a veth gets an XDP program attached and
>> > then is moved into a network namespace (as I've already explained to
>> > Toke in a meeting).  
>> 
>> Yeah, I had somehow convinced myself that the XDP program was being
>> removed when the interface was being torn down before moving between
>> namespaces. Jesper pointed out that this was not in fact the case... :P
>> 
>> > I'm still not sure how to handle this...  
>> 
>> There are a couple of options, I think. At least:
>> 
>> 1. Maintain a flag on struct net_device indicating that this device
>>    needs the redirect map allocated, and react to that when interfaces
>>    are being moved.
>> 
>> 2. Lookup the BPF program by ID (which we can get from the driver) on
>>    move, and react to the program flag.
>> 
>> 3. Keep the allocation on program load, but allocate maps for all active
>>    namespaces (which would probably need a refcnt mechanism to
>>    deallocate things again).
>> 
>> I think I'm leaning towards #2; possibly combined with a refcnt so we
>> can actually deallocate the map in the root namespace when it's not
>> needed anymore.
>
> Okay.. what about tail calls? I think #3 is most reasonable
> complexity- -wise, or some mix of #2 and #3 - cnt the programs with
> legacy redirects, and then allocate the resources if cnt && name space
> has any XDP program attached.

Yeah, I have that more or less working; except I forgot about tail
calls, but that should not be too difficult to fix.

> Can users really not be told to just use the correct helper? ;)

Experience would suggest not; users tend to use the simplest API that
gets their job done. And then wonder why they don't get the nice
performance numbers they were "promised". And, well, I tend to agree
that it's not terribly friendly to just go "use this other more
complicated API if you want proper performance". If we really mean that,
then we should formally deprecate xdp_redirect() as an API, IMO :)

-Toke