Message-ID: <4c80aacf-d61b-823f-71fe-68634a88eaa6@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:38:23 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Tanner Love <tannerlove.kernel@...il.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Petar Penkov <ppenkov@...gle.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Tanner Love <tannerlove@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/3] virtio_net: add optional flow dissection
 in virtio_net_hdr_to_skb


在 2021/6/11 上午10:45, Willem de Bruijn 写道:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 10:11 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> 在 2021/6/10 下午10:04, Willem de Bruijn 写道:
>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 1:25 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> 在 2021/6/10 下午12:19, Alexei Starovoitov 写道:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 9:13 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So I wonder why not simply use helpers to access the vnet header like
>>>>>> how tcp-bpf access the tcp header?
>>>>> Short answer - speed.
>>>>> tcp-bpf accesses all uapi and non-uapi structs directly.
>>>>>
>>>> Ok, this makes sense. But instead of coupling device specific stuffs
>>>> like vnet header and neediness into general flow_keys as a context.
>>>>
>>>> It would be better to introduce a vnet header context which contains
>>>>
>>>> 1) vnet header
>>>> 2) flow keys
>>>> 3) other contexts like endian and virtio-net features
>>>>
>>>> So we preserve the performance and decouple the virtio-net stuffs from
>>>> general structures like flow_keys or __sk_buff.
>>> You are advocating for a separate BPF program that takes a vnet hdr
>>> and flow_keys as context and is run separately after flow dissection?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>
>>> I don't understand the benefit of splitting the program in two in this manner.
>>
>> It decouples a device specific attributes from the general structures
>> like flow keys. We have xen-netfront, netvsc and a lot of drivers that
>> works for the emulated devices. We could not add all those metadatas as
>> the context of flow keys.
> What are device-specific attributes here? What kind of metadata?


Isn't virtio_net_hdr a virito-net specific metadata?


>
> The only metadata that can be passed with tuntap, pf_packet et al is
> virtio_net_hdr.
>
> I quite don't understand where xen-netfront et al come in.


The problem is, what kind of issue you want to solve. If you want to 
solve virtio specific issue, why do you need to do that in the general 
flow dissector?

If you want to solve the general issue of the packet metadata validation 
from untrusted source, you need validate not only virtio-net but all the 
others. Netfront is another dodgy source and there're a lot of implied 
untrusted source in the case of virtualization environment.


>
>> That's why I suggest to use something more
>> generic like XDP from the start. Yes, GSO stuffs was disabled by
>> virtio-net on XDP but it's not something that can not be fixed. If the
>> GSO and s/g support can not be done in short time
> An alternative interface does not address that we already have this
> interface and it is already causing problems.


What problems did you meant here?


>
>> then a virtio-net
>> specific BPF program still looks much better than coupling virtio-net
>> metadata into flow keys or other general data structures.
>>
>>
>>> Your previous comment mentions two vnet_hdr definitions that can get
>>> out of sync. Do you mean v1 of this patch, that adds the individual
>>> fields to bpf_flow_dissector?
>>
>> No, I meant this part of the patch:
>>
>>
>> +static int check_virtio_net_hdr_access(struct bpf_verifier_env *env,
>> int off,
>> +                       int size)
>> +{
>> +    if (size < 0 || off < 0 ||
>> +        (u64)off + size > sizeof(struct virtio_net_hdr)) {
>> +        verbose(env, "invalid access to virtio_net_hdr off=%d size=%d\n",
>> +            off, size);
>> +        return -EACCES;
>> +    }
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>
>>
>> It prevents the program from accessing e.g num_buffers.
> I see, thanks. See my response to your following point.
>
>>
>>> That is no longer the case: the latest
>>> version directly access the real struct. As Alexei points out, doing
>>> this does not set virtio_net_hdr in stone in the ABI. That is a valid
>>> worry. But so this patch series will not restrict how that struct may
>>> develop over time. A version field allows a BPF program to parse the
>>> different variants of the struct -- in the same manner as other
>>> protocol headers.
>>
>> The format of the virtio-net header depends on the virtio features, any
>> reason for another version? The correct way is to provide features in
>> the context, in this case you don't event need the endian hint.
> That might work. It clearly works for virtio. Not sure how to apply it
> to pf_packet or tuntap callers of virtio_net_hdr_to_skb.


This requires more thought but it also applies to the version. For 
tuntap, features could be deduced from the 1) TUN_SET_VET_HDR and 2) 
TUN_SET_OFFLOADS

Note that theatrically features could be provided by the userspace, but 
version is not (unless it's a part of uAPI but it became a duplication 
of the features).

Actually, this is a strong hint that the conext for packet, tuntap is 
different with virtio-net (though they are sharing the same (or patial) 
vnet header structure). E.g tuntap is unaware of mergerable buffers, it 
just leave the room for vhost-net or qemu to fill that fields.


>
>>> If you prefer, we can add that field from the start.
>>> I don't see a benefit to an extra layer of indirection in the form of
>>> helper functions.
>>>
>>> I do see downsides to splitting the program. The goal is to ensure
>>> consistency between vnet_hdr and packet payload. A program split
>>> limits to checking vnet_hdr against what the flow_keys struct has
>>> extracted. That is a great reduction over full packet access.
>>
>> Full packet access could be still done in bpf flow dissector.
>>
>>
>>> For
>>> instance, does the packet contain IP options? No idea.
>>
>> I don't understand here. You can figure out this in flow dissector, and
>> you can extend the flow keys to carry out this information if necessary.
> This I disagree with. flow_keys are a distillation/simplification of
> the packet contents. It is unlikely to capture every feature of every
> packet.


It depends on what kind of checks you want to do. When introducing a new 
API like this, we need to make sure all the fields could be validated 
instead of limiting it to some specific fields. Not all the fields are 
related to the flow, that's another point that validating it in the flow 
dissector is not a good choice.

For vnet_header fields that is related to the flow, they should be a 
subset of the current flow keys otherwise it's a hint a flow keys need 
to be extended. For vnet_header fields that is not related to the flow, 
validate it in flow dissector requires a lot of other context (features, 
and probably the virtqueue size for the num_buffers). And if you want to 
validate things that is totally unrelated to the vnet header (e.g IP 
option), it can be done in the flow dissector right now or via XDP.


>   We end up having to extend it for every new case we're
> interested in. That is ugly and a lot of busywork. And for what
> purpose? The virtio_net_hdr field prefaces the protocol headers in the
> same buffer in something like tpacket. Processing the metadata
> together with the data is straightforward. I don't see what isolation
> or layering that breaks.


Well, if you want to process metadata with the data, isn't XDP a much 
more better place to do that?


>
>> And if you want to have more capability, XDP which is designed for early
>> packet filtering is the right way to go which have even more functions
>> that a simple bpf flow dissector.
>>
>>> If stable ABI is not a concern and there are no different struct
>>> definitions that can go out of sync, does that address your main
>>> concerns?
>>
>> I think not. Assuming we provide sufficient contexts (e.g the virtio
>> features), problem still: 1) coupling virtio-net with flow_keys
> A flow dissection program is allowed to read both contents of struct
> virtio_net_hdr and packet contents. virtio_net_hdr is not made part of
> struct bpf_flow_keys.


It doesn't matter whether or not it's a pointer. And actually you had 
vhdr_is_little_endian:

@@ -6017,6 +6017,8 @@ struct bpf_flow_keys {
  	};
  	__u32	flags;
  	__be32	flow_label;
+	__bpf_md_ptr(const struct virtio_net_hdr *, vhdr);
+	__u8	vhdr_is_little_endian;
  };


And if we want to add the support to validate other untrusted sources, 
do we want:

struct bpf_flow_keys {
     /* general fields */
     virtio_net_context;
     xen_netfront_context;
     netvsc_context;
     ...
};

?


>   The pointer there is just a way to give access
> to multiple data sources through the single bpf program context.
>
>> 2) can't work for XDP.
> This future work (AF_?)XDP based alternative to
> pf_packet/tuntap/virtio does not exist yet, so it's hard to fully
> prepare for. But any replacement interface will observe the same
> issue: when specifying offloads like GSO/csum, that metadata may not
> agree with actual packet contents. We have to have a way to validate
> that. I could imagine that this XDP program attached to the AF_XDP
> interface would do the validation itself?


If the XDP can do validation itself, any reason to duplicate the work in 
the flow dissector?


> Is that what you mean?


Kind of, it's not specific to AF_XDP, assuming XDP supports GSO/sg. With 
XDP_REDIRECT/XDP_TX, you still need to validate the vnet header.

Thanks


>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists