netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/11] Introduce BPF STRUCT

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: <CAEf4BzZ_LahEL_tJQhzSAxeoyEq_8_hA7QM80qRFG2tQBN3WPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 9 Jan 2020 14:36:49 -0800
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 00/11] Introduce BPF STRUCT_OPS

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:39 PM Alexei Starovoitov
<alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:35 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
> >
> > This series introduces BPF STRUCT_OPS.  It is an infra to allow
> > implementing some specific kernel's function pointers in BPF.
> > The first use case included in this series is to implement
> > TCP congestion control algorithm in BPF  (i.e. implement
> > struct tcp_congestion_ops in BPF).
> >
> > There has been attempt to move the TCP CC to the user space
> > (e.g. CCP in TCP).   The common arguments are faster turn around,
> > get away from long-tail kernel versions in production...etc,
> > which are legit points.
> >
> > BPF has been the continuous effort to join both kernel and
> > userspace upsides together (e.g. XDP to gain the performance
> > advantage without bypassing the kernel).  The recent BPF
> > advancements (in particular BTF-aware verifier, BPF trampoline,
> > BPF CO-RE...) made implementing kernel struct ops (e.g. tcp cc)
> > possible in BPF.
> >
> > The idea is to allow implementing tcp_congestion_ops in bpf.
> > It allows a faster turnaround for testing algorithm in the
> > production while leveraging the existing (and continue growing) BPF
> > feature/framework instead of building one specifically for
> > userspace TCP CC.
> >
> > Please see individual patch for details.
> >
> > The bpftool support will be posted in follow-up patches.
> >
> > v4:
> > - Expose tcp_ca_find() to tcp.h in patch 7.
> >   It is used to check the same bpf-tcp-cc
> >   does not exist to guarantee the register()
> >   will succeed.
> > - set_memory_ro() and then set_memory_x() only after all
> >   trampolines are written to the image in patch 6. (Daniel)
> >   spinlock is replaced by mutex because set_memory_*
> >   requires sleepable context.
>
> Applied. Thanks
>
> Please address any future follow up
> and please remember to provide 'why' details in commit log
> no matter how obvious the patch looks as Arnaldo pointed out.
>
> Re: 'bpftool module' command.
> I think it's too early to call anything 'a module',
> since in this context people will immediately assume 'a kernel module'
> It's a loaded phrase with a lot of consequences.
> bpf-tcp-cc cubic and dctcp do look like kernel modules, but they are
> not kernel modules at all. imo making them look like kernel modules
> has plenty of downsides.
> So as an immediate followup for bpftool I'd recommend to stick
> with 'bpftool struct_ops' command or whatever other name.
> Just not 'bpftool module'.
>
> I think there is a makefile issue with selftests.
> make clean;make -j50
> kept failing for me three times in a row with:
> progs/bpf_dctcp.c:138:4: warning: implicit declaration of function
> 'bpf_tcp_send_ack' is invalid in C99 [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>                         bpf_tcp_send_ack(sk, *prior_rcv_nxt);
> but single threaded 'make clean;make' succeeded.
> Andrii, you have a chance to take a look and reproduce would be great.

Spotted few problems that might have caused this, will send a fix shortly.