Message-ID: <87blthox30.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Tue, 12 Nov 2019 17:53:23 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
        Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...filter.org>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@....org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        William Tu <u9012063@...il.com>,
        Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 bpf-next 00/15] xdp_flow: Flow offload to XDP

Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com> writes:
>
> Hi Toke,
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> On 2019/10/31 21:12, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 2019/10/28 0:21, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> Toshiaki Makita <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com> writes:
>>>>>> Yeah, you are right that it's something we're thinking about. I'm not
>>>>>> sure we'll actually have the bandwidth to implement a complete solution
>>>>>> ourselves, but we are very much interested in helping others do this,
>>>>>> including smoothing out any rough edges (or adding missing features) in
>>>>>> the core XDP feature set that is needed to achieve this :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm very interested in general usability solutions.
>>>>> I'd appreciate if you could join the discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here the basic idea of my approach is to reuse HW-offload infrastructure
>>>>> in kernel.
>>>>> Typical networking features in kernel have offload mechanism (TC flower,
>>>>> nftables, bridge, routing, and so on).
>>>>> In general these are what users want to accelerate, so easy XDP use also
>>>>> should support these features IMO. With this idea, reusing existing
>>>>> HW-offload mechanism is a natural way to me. OVS uses TC to offload
>>>>> flows, then use TC for XDP as well...
>>>>
>>>> I agree that XDP should be able to accelerate existing kernel
>>>> functionality. However, this does not necessarily mean that the kernel
>>>> has to generate an XDP program and install it, like your patch does.
>>>> Rather, what we should be doing is exposing the functionality through
>>>> helpers so XDP can hook into the data structures already present in the
>>>> kernel and make decisions based on what is contained there. We already
>>>> have that for routing; L2 bridging, and some kind of connection
>>>> tracking, are obvious contenders for similar additions.
>>>
>>> Thanks, adding helpers itself should be good, but how does this let users
>>> start using XDP without having them write their own BPF code?
>> 
>> It wouldn't in itself. But it would make it possible to write XDP
>> programs that could provide the same functionality; people would then
>> need to run those programs to actually opt-in to this.
>> 
>> For some cases this would be a simple "on/off switch", e.g.,
>> "xdp-route-accel --load <dev>", which would install an XDP program that
>> uses the regular kernel routing table (and the same with bridging). We
>> are planning to collect such utilities in the xdp-tools repo - I am
>> currently working on a simple packet filter:
>> https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tools/tree/xdp-filter
>
> Let me confirm how this tool adds filter rules.
> Is this adding another commandline tool for firewall?
>
> If so, that is different from my goal.
> Introducing another commandline tool will require people to learn
> more.
>
> My proposal is to reuse kernel interface to minimize such need for
> learning.

I wasn't proposing that this particular tool should be a replacement for
the kernel packet filter; it's deliberately fairly limited in
functionality. My point was that we could create other such tools for
specific use cases which could be more or less drop-in (similar to how
nftables has a command line tool that is compatible with the iptables
syntax).

I'm all for exposing more of the existing kernel capabilities to XDP.
However, I think it's the wrong approach to do this by reimplementing
the functionality in eBPF program and replicating the state in maps;
instead, it's better to refactor the existing kernel functionality to it
can be called directly from an eBPF helper function. And then ship a
tool as part of xdp-tools that installs an XDP program to make use of
these helpers to accelerate the functionality.

Take your example of TC rules: You were proposing a flow like this:

Userspace TC rule -> kernel rule table -> eBPF map -> generated XDP
program

Whereas what I mean is that we could do this instead:

Userspace TC rule -> kernel rule table

and separately

XDP program -> bpf helper -> lookup in kernel rule table


-Toke

Powered by blists - more mailing lists