netdev - Re: Unable to create htb tc classes more than 64K

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]

Date:   Mon, 26 Aug 2019 09:28:50 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Akshat Kakkar <akshat.1984@...il.com>
Cc:     Anton Danilov <littlesmilingcloud@...il.com>,
        NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lartc <lartc@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Unable to create htb tc classes more than 64K

Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes:

> On 8/25/19 7:52 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:00 PM Akshat Kakkar <akshat.1984@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:37 AM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> I am using ipset +  iptables to classify and not filters. Besides, if
>>>>> tc is allowing me to define qdisc -> classes -> qdsic -> classes
>>>>> (1,2,3 ...) sort of structure (ie like the one shown in ascii tree)
>>>>> then how can those lowest child classes be actually used or consumed?
>>>>
>>>> Just install tc filters on the lower level too.
>>>
>>> If I understand correctly, you are saying,
>>> instead of :
>>> tc filter add dev eno2 parent 100: protocol ip prio 1 handle
>>> 0x00000001 fw flowid 1:10
>>> tc filter add dev eno2 parent 100: protocol ip prio 1 handle
>>> 0x00000002 fw flowid 1:20
>>> tc filter add dev eno2 parent 100: protocol ip prio 1 handle
>>> 0x00000003 fw flowid 2:10
>>> tc filter add dev eno2 parent 100: protocol ip prio 1 handle
>>> 0x00000004 fw flowid 2:20
>>>
>>>
>>> I should do this: (i.e. changing parent to just immediate qdisc)
>>> tc filter add dev eno2 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle 0x00000001
>>> fw flowid 1:10
>>> tc filter add dev eno2 parent 1: protocol ip prio 1 handle 0x00000002
>>> fw flowid 1:20
>>> tc filter add dev eno2 parent 2: protocol ip prio 1 handle 0x00000003
>>> fw flowid 2:10
>>> tc filter add dev eno2 parent 2: protocol ip prio 1 handle 0x00000004
>>> fw flowid 2:20
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, this is what I meant.
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>> I tried this previously. But there is not change in the result.
>>> Behaviour is exactly same, i.e. I am still getting 100Mbps and not
>>> 100kbps or 300kbps
>>>
>>> Besides, as I mentioned previously I am using ipset + skbprio and not
>>> filters stuff. Filters I used just to test.
>>>
>>> ipset  -N foo hash:ip,mark skbinfo
>>>
>>> ipset -A foo 10.10.10.10, 0x0x00000001 skbprio 1:10
>>> ipset -A foo 10.10.10.20, 0x0x00000002 skbprio 1:20
>>> ipset -A foo 10.10.10.30, 0x0x00000003 skbprio 2:10
>>> ipset -A foo 10.10.10.40, 0x0x00000004 skbprio 2:20
>>>
>>> iptables -A POSTROUTING -j SET --map-set foo dst,dst --map-prio
>> 
>> Hmm..
>> 
>> I am not familiar with ipset, but it seems to save the skbprio into
>> skb->priority, so it doesn't need TC filter to classify it again.
>> 
>> I guess your packets might go to the direct queue of HTB, which
>> bypasses the token bucket. Can you dump the stats and check?
>
> With more than 64K 'classes' I suggest to use a single FQ qdisc [1], and
> an eBPF program using EDT model (Earliest Departure Time)
>
> The BPF program would perform the classification, then find a data structure
> based on the 'class', and then update/maintain class virtual times and skb->tstamp
>
> TBF = bpf_map_lookup_elem(&map, &classid);
>
> uint64_t now = bpf_ktime_get_ns();
> uint64_t time_to_send = max(TBF->time_to_send, now);
>
> time_to_send += (u64)qdisc_pkt_len(skb) * NSEC_PER_SEC / TBF->rate;
> if (time_to_send > TBF->max_horizon) {
>     return TC_ACT_SHOT;
> }
> TBF->time_to_send = time_to_send;
> skb->tstamp = max(time_to_send, skb->tstamp);
> if (time_to_send - now > TBF->ecn_horizon)
>     bpf_skb_ecn_set_ce(skb);
> return TC_ACT_OK;
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_tc_edt.c shows something similar.
>
>
> [1]  MQ + FQ if the device is multi-queues.
>
>    Note that this setup scales very well on SMP, since we no longer are forced
>  to use a single HTB hierarchy (protected by a single spinlock)

Wow, this is very cool! Thanks for that walk-through, Eric :)

-Toke