netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf, xdp: per-map bpf_redirect

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]

Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 10:49:20 +0100
From:   Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com>,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        bpf@...r.kernel.org, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
        maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, kuba@...nel.org,
        jonathan.lemon@...il.com, maximmi@...dia.com, davem@...emloft.net,
        hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf, xdp: per-map bpf_redirect_map functions
 for XDP



On 2021-02-01 10:31, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 07:27:57 +0100
> Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2021-01-29 17:45, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>> Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...il.com> writes:
>>>    
>>>> From: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
>>>>
>>>> Currently the bpf_redirect_map() implementation dispatches to the
>>>> correct map-lookup function via a switch-statement. To avoid the
>>>> dispatching, this change adds one bpf_redirect_map() implementation per
>>>> map. Correct function is automatically selected by the BPF verifier.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Hi XDP-folks!
>>>>
>>>> This is another take on my bpf_redirect_xsk() patch [1]. I figured I
>>>> send it as an RFC for some early input. My plan is to include it as
>>>> part of the xdp_do_redirect() optimization of [1].
>>>
>>> Assuming the maintainers are OK with the special-casing in the verifier,
>>> this looks like a neat way to avoid the runtime overhead to me. The
>>> macro hackery is not the prettiest; I wonder if the same effect could be
>>> achieved by using inline functions? If not, at least a comment
>>> explaining the reasoning (and that the verifier will substitute the
>>> right function) might be nice? Mostly in relation to this bit:
>>>   
>>
>> Yeah, I agree with the macro part. I'll replace it with a
>> __always_inline function, instead.
>>
> 
> Yes, I also prefer __always_inline over the macro.
>

Ok! Good!

> 
>>>>    static const struct bpf_func_proto bpf_xdp_redirect_map_proto = {
>>>> -	.func           = bpf_xdp_redirect_map,
>>>> +	.func           = bpf_xdp_redirect_devmap,
>>>   
>>
>> I'll try to clean this up as well.
> 
> I do like the optimization of having the verifier call the right map
> func directly.  Could you please add a descriptive comment that
> describe this above "bpf_xdp_redirect_map_proto", that this is
> happening in fixup_bpf_calls and use get_xdp_redirect_func (what you
> define).  It is a cool trick, but people reading the code will have a
> hard time following.
>

Good idea, and makes sense! I'll make sure to do that!

Thanks for the input!


Cheers,
Björn


> Surprisingly people do read this code and tries to follow.  I've had
> discussions on the Cilium Slack channel, where people misunderstood how
> our bpf_fib_lookup() calls gets mapped to two different functions
> depending on context (SKB vs XDP).  And that remapping happens in the
> same file (net/core/filter.c).
>