Message-ID: <20200921144953.6456d47d@carbon>
Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 14:49:53 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>
Cc:     Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeed@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        BPF-dev-list <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Shaun Crampton <shaun@...era.io>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Marek Majkowski <marek@...udflare.com>, brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: BPF redirect API design issue for BPF-prog MTU feedback?

On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:37:18 +0100
Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 00:06, Maciej Żenczykowski <maze@...gle.com> wrote:
> >  
> > > This is a good point.  As bpf_skb_adjust_room() can just be run after
> > > bpf_redirect() call, then a MTU check in bpf_redirect() actually
> > > doesn't make much sense.  As clever/bad BPF program can then avoid the
> > > MTU check anyhow.  This basically means that we have to do the MTU
> > > check (again) on kernel side anyhow to catch such clever/bad BPF
> > > programs.  (And I don't like wasting cycles on doing the same check two
> > > times).  
> >
> > If you get rid of the check in bpf_redirect() you might as well get
> > rid of *all* the checks for excessive mtu in all the helpers that
> > adjust packet size one way or another way.  They *all* then become
> > useless overhead.
> >
> > I don't like that.  There may be something the bpf program could do to
> > react to the error condition (for example in my case, not modify
> > things and just let the core stack deal with things - which will
> > probably just generate packet too big icmp error).
> >
> > btw. right now our forwarding programs first adjust the packet size
> > then call bpf_redirect() and almost immediately return what it
> > returned.
> >
> > but this could I think easily be changed to reverse the ordering, so
> > we wouldn't increase packet size before the core stack was informed we
> > would be forwarding via a different interface.  
> 
> We do the same, except that we also use XDP_TX when appropriate. This
> complicates the matter, because there is no helper call we could
> return an error from.

Do notice that my MTU work is focused on TC-BPF.  For XDP-redirect the
MTU check is done in xdp_ok_fwd_dev() via __xdp_enqueue(), which also
happens too late to give BPF-prog knowledge/feedback.  For XDP_TX I
audited the drivers when I implemented xdp_buff.frame_sz, and they
handled (or I added) handling against max HW MTU. E.g. mlx5 [1].

[1] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.9-rc6/source/drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/en/xdp.c#L267



> My preference would be to have three helpers: get MTU for a device,
> redirect ctx to a device (with MTU check), resize ctx (without MTU
> check) but that doesn't work with XDP_TX. Your idea of doing checks
> in redirect and adjust_room is pragmatic and seems easier to
> implement.
 
I do like this plan/proposal (with 3 helpers), but it is not possible
with current API.  The main problem is the current bpf_redirect API
doesn't provide the ctx, so we cannot do the check in the BPF-helper.

Are you saying we should create a new bpf_redirect API (that incl packet ctx)?

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

Powered by blists - more mailing lists