[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201208100040.0d57742a@carbon>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:00:40 +0100
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc: brouer@...hat.com, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com>,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
<toke@...hat.com>, alardam@...il.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
bjorn.topel@...el.com, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org,
ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
hawk@...nel.org, jonathan.lemon@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
Marek Majtyka <marekx.majtyka@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set
On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 12:52:22 -0800
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
> > Use-case(1): Cloud-provider want to give customers (running VMs) ability
> > to load XDP program for DDoS protection (only), but don't want to allow
> > customer to use XDP_TX (that can implement LB or cheat their VM
> > isolation policy).
>
> Not following. What interface do they want to allow loading on? If its
> the VM interface then I don't see how it matters. From outside the
> VM there should be no way to discover if its done in VM or in tc or
> some other stack.
>
> If its doing some onloading/offloading I would assume they need to
> ensure the isolation, etc. is still maintained because you can't
> let one VMs program work on other VMs packets safely.
>
> So what did I miss, above doesn't make sense to me.
The Cloud-provider want to load customer provided BPF-code on the
physical Host-OS NIC (that support XDP). The customer can get access
to a web-interface where they can write or upload their BPF-prog.
As multiple customers can upload BPF-progs, the Cloud-provider have to
write a BPF-prog dispatcher that runs these multiple program. This
could be done via BPF tail-calls, or via Toke's libxdp[1], or via
devmap XDP-progs per egress port.
The Cloud-provider don't fully trust customers BPF-prog. They already
pre-filtered traffic to the given VM, so they can allow customers
freedom to see traffic and do XDP_PASS and XDP_DROP. They
administratively (via ethtool) want to disable the XDP_REDIRECT and
XDP_TX driver feature, as it can be used for violation their VM
isolation policy between customers.
Is the use-case more clear now?
[1] https://github.com/xdp-project/xdp-tools/tree/master/lib/libxdp
--
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