netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Introduce bpf

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEf4BzbzviuM2xXAc_v8vf=KO1F1q1iy3Jmzrb8ZdF_3Vo22QA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 May 2021 12:47:28 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Introduce bpf_timer

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:22 PM Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 12:13 PM Andrii Nakryiko
> <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > I second the use of BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN (a.k.a. BPF_PROG_RUN now) to
> > "mirror" such APIs to user-space. We have so much BPF-side
>
> Except the expiration time is stored in user-space too if you just
> use user-space timers to trigger BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN.
> Modifying expiration based on its current value in timer callbacks
> is very common. For example in conntrack use case, we want the
> GC timer to run sooner in the next run if we get certain amount of
> expired items in current run.

I'm not entirely sure what all this means, sorry. My general point is
that instead of doing bpf() syscall with a new custom command (e.g.,
BPF_TIMER_UPDATE), you can just fire your custom BPF program with
BPF_TEST_RUN. You can pass custom timeouts or any other
user-space-provided settings either through global variables, custom
maps, or directly as a context. So you have full control over what
should be set when and why, we just avoid adding tons of custom bpf()
syscall commands for every single feature.

>
>
> > functionality and APIs that reflecting all of that with special
> > user-space-facing BPF commands is becoming quite impractical. E.g., a
> > long time ago there was a proposal to add commands to push data to BPF
> > ringbuf from user-space for all kinds of testing scenarios. We never
> > did that because no one bothered enough, but now I'd advocate that a
> > small custom BPF program that is single-shot through BPF_PROG_RUN is a
> > better way to do this. Similarly for timers and whatever other
> > functionality. By doing everything from BPF program we also side-step
> > potential subtle differences in semantics between BPF-side and
> > user-space-side.
>
> I am confused about what you are saying, because we can already
> trigger BPF_PROG_RUN with a user-space timer for a single shot,
> with the current kernel, without any modification. So this sounds like
> you are against adding any timer on the eBPF side, but on the other
> hand, you are secoding to Alexei's patch... I am completely lost.

I'm arguing against adding more custom commands to bpf() syscall. And
I was talking about triggering BPF program directly from user-space
with BPF_PROG_TEST_RUN/BPF_PROG_RUN command, not through some timers.

>
> Very clearly, whatever you described as "single shot" is not what we
> want from any perspective.

I'm not sure we are even talking about the same things, so I doubt
"clearly" in this case.

>
> Thanks.