netdev - Re: [PATCH v9 bpf-next 08/14] bpf: add multi-buff support to the bpf_xdp_adjust

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: <874kdgkdgw.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Tue, 29 Jun 2021 15:27:43 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, shayagr@...zon.com,
        sameehj@...zon.com, dsahern@...nel.org, brouer@...hat.com,
        jasowang@...hat.com, alexander.duyck@...il.com, saeed@...nel.org,
        maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
        tirthendu.sarkar@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 bpf-next 08/14] bpf: add multi-buff support to the
 bpf_xdp_adjust_tail() API

Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com> writes:

>> Eelco Chaudron wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 23 Jun 2021, at 1:37, John Fastabend wrote:
>> > 
>> > > Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> > >> From: Eelco Chaudron <echaudro@...hat.com>
>> > >>
>> > >> This change adds support for tail growing and shrinking for XDP multi-buff.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > It would be nice if the commit message gave us some details on how the
>> > > growing/shrinking works in the multi-buff support.
> [...]
>> > Guess this is the tricky part, applications need to be multi-buffer aware. If current applications rely on bpf_xdp_adjust_tail(+) to determine maximum frame length this approach might not work. In this case, we might need an additional helper to do tail expansion with multi buffer support.
>> > 
>> > But then the question arrives how would mb unaware application behave in general when an mb packet is supplied?? It would definitely not determine the correct packet length.
>> 
>> Right that was my conclusion as well. Existing programs might
>> have subtle side effects if they start running on multibuffer
>> drivers as is. I don't have any good ideas though on how
>> to handle this.
>
> what about checking the program capabilities at load time (e.g. with a
> special program type) and disable mb feature if the bpf program is not
> mb-aware? (e.g. forbid to set the MTU greater than 1500B in xdp mode).

So what happens when that legacy program runs on a veth and gets an
mb-enabled frame redirected into it? :)

-Toke