Date:   Tue, 29 Jun 2021 11:21:24 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] vhost_net: remove virtio_net_hdr validation, let
 tun/tap do it themselves


在 2021/6/28 下午7:23, David Woodhouse 写道:
> On Mon, 2021-06-28 at 12:23 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> 在 2021/6/25 下午4:37, David Woodhouse 写道:
>>> On Fri, 2021-06-25 at 15:33 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> 在 2021/6/24 下午8:30, David Woodhouse 写道:
>>>>> From: David Woodhouse<dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
>>>>>
>>>>> When the underlying socket isn't configured with a virtio_net_hdr, the
>>>>> existing code in vhost_net_build_xdp() would attempt to validate
>>>>> uninitialised data, by copying zero bytes (sock_hlen) into the local
>>>>> copy of the header and then trying to validate that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixing it is somewhat non-trivial because the tun device might put a
>>>>> struct tun_pi*before*  the virtio_net_hdr, which makes it hard to find.
>>>>> So just stop messing with someone else's data in vhost_net_build_xdp(),
>>>>> and let tap and tun validate it for themselves, as they do in the
>>>>> non-XDP case anyway.
>>>> Thinking in another way. All XDP stuffs for vhost is prepared for TAP.
>>>> XDP is not expected to work for TUN.
>>>>
>>>> So we can simply let's vhost doesn't go with XDP path is the underlayer
>>>> socket is TUN.
>>> Actually, IFF_TUN mode per se isn't that complex. It's fixed purely on
>>> the tun side by that first patch I posted, which I later expanded a
>>> little to factor out tun_skb_set_protocol().
>>>
>>> The next two patches in my original set were fixing up the fact that
>>> XDP currently assumes that the *socket* will be doing the vhdr, not
>>> vhost. Those two weren't tun-specific at all.
>>>
>>> It's supporting the PI header (which tun puts *before* the virtio
>>> header as I just said) which introduces a tiny bit more complexity.
>>
>> This reminds me we need to fix tun_put_user_xdp(),
> Good point; thanks.
>
>> but as we've discussed, we need first figure out if PI is worth to
>> support for vhost-net.
> FWIW I certainly don't care about PI support. The only time anyone
> would want PI support is if they need to support protocols *other* than
> IPv6 and Legacy IP, over tun mode.
>
> I'm fixing this stuff because when I tried to use vhost-tun + tun for
> *sensible* use cases, I ended up having to flounder around trying to
> find a combination of settings that actually worked. And that offended
> me :)
>
> So I wrote a test case to iterate over various possible combinations of
> settings, and then kept typing until that all worked.
>
> The only thing I do feel quite strongly about is that stuff should
> either *work*, or *explicitly* fail if it's unsupported.


I fully agree, but I suspect this may only work when we invent something 
new, otherwise I'm not sure if it's too late to fix where it may break 
the existing application.


>
> At this point, although I have no actual use for it myself, I'd
> probably just about come down on the side of supporting PI. On the
> basis that:
>
>   • I've basically made it work already.
>
>   • It allows those code paths like tun_skb_set_protocol() to be
>     consolidated as both calling code paths need the same thing.
>
>   • Even in the kernel, and even when modules are as incestuously
>     intertwined as vhost-net and tun already are, I'm a strong
>     believer in *not* making assumptions about someone else's data,
>     so letting *tun* handle its own headers without making those
>     assumptions seems like the right thing to do.
>
>
>
> If we want to support PI, I need to go fix tun_put_user_xdp() as you
> noted (and work out how to add that to the test case). And resolve the
> fact that configuration might change after tun_get_socket() is called —
> and indeed that there might not *be* a configuration at all when
> tun_get_socket() is called.


Yes, but I tend to leave the code as is PI part consider no one is 
interested in that. (vhost_net + PI).


>
>
> If we *don't* want to support PI, well, the *interesting* part of the
> above needs fixing anyway. Because I strongly believe we should
> *prevent* it if we don't support it, and we *still* have the case you
> point out of the tun vhdr_size being changed at runtime.


As discussed in another thread, it looks me to it's sufficient to have 
some statics counters/API in vhost_net. Or simply use msg_control to 
reuse tx_errors of TUN/TAP or macvtap.


>
> I'll take a look at whether can pass the socklen back from tun to
> vhost-net on *every* packet. Is there a MSG_XXX flag we can abuse and
> somewhere in the msghdr that could return the header length used for
> *this* packet?


msg_control is probably the best place to do this.


>   Or could we make vhost_net_rx_peek_head_len() call
> explicitly into the tun device instead of making stuff up in
> peek_head_len()?


They're working at skb/xdp level which is unaware of PI stuffs.

But again, I think it should be much more cheaper to just add error 
reporting in this case. And it should be sufficient.


>
>
> To be clear: from the point of view of my *application* I don't care
> about any of this; my only motivation here is to clean up the kernel
> behaviour and make life easier for potential future users.


Yes, thanks a lot for having a look at this.

Though I'm not quite sure vhost_net is designed to work on those setups 
but let's ask for Michael (author of vhost/net) for his idea:

Michael, do you think it's worth to support

1) vhost_net + TUN
2) vhost_net + PI

?


> I have found
> a setup that works in today's kernels (even though I have to disable
> XDP, and have to use a virtio header that I don't want), and will stick
> with that for now, if I actually commit it to my master branch at all:
> https://gitlab.com/openconnect/openconnect/-/commit/0da4fe43b886403e6


Yes, but unfortunately it needs some tricks for avoid hitting bugs in 
the kernel.


>
> I might yet abandon it because I haven't *yet* seen it go any faster
> than the code which just does read()/write() on the tun device from
> userspace. And without XDP or zerocopy it's not clear that it could
> ever give me any benefit that I couldn't achieve purely in userspace by
> having a separate thread to do tun device I/O. But we'll see...


Ok.

Thanks.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists