Message-ID: <87czp13718.fsf@toke.dk>
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 00:20:19 +0200
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Zvi Effron <zeffron@...tgames.com>,
        Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...udflare.com>,
        Lorenzo Bianconi <lbianconi@...hat.com>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Redux: Backwards compatibility for XDP multi-buff

Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:23 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Zvi Effron <zeffron@...tgames.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:06 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Lorenz (Cc. the other people who participated in today's discussion)
>> >>
>> >> Following our discussion at the LPC session today, I dug up my previous
>> >> summary of the issue and some possible solutions[0]. Seems no on
>> >> actually replied last time, which is why we went with the "do nothing"
>> >> approach, I suppose. I'm including the full text of the original email
>> >> below; please take a look, and let's see if we can converge on a
>> >> consensus here.
>> >>
>> >> First off, a problem description: If an existing XDP program is exposed
>> >> to an xdp_buff that is really a multi-buffer, while it will continue to
>> >> run, it may end up with subtle and hard-to-debug bugs: If it's parsing
>> >> the packet it'll only see part of the payload and not be aware of that
>> >> fact, and if it's calculating the packet length, that will also only be
>> >> wrong (only counting the first fragment).
>> >>
>> >> So what to do about this? First of all, to do anything about it, XDP
>> >> programs need to be able to declare themselves "multi-buffer aware" (but
>> >> see point 1 below). We could try to auto-detect it in the verifier by
>> >> which helpers the program is using, but since existing programs could be
>> >> perfectly happy to just keep running, it probably needs to be something
>> >> the program communicates explicitly. One option is to use the
>> >> expected_attach_type to encode this; programs can then declare it in the
>> >> source by section name, or the userspace loader can set the type for
>> >> existing programs if needed.
>> >>
>> >> With this, the kernel will know if a given XDP program is multi-buff
>> >> aware and can decide what to do with that information. For this we came
>> >> up with basically three options:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Do nothing. This would make it up to users / sysadmins to avoid
>> >>    anything breaking by manually making sure to not enable multi-buffer
>> >>    support while loading any XDP programs that will malfunction if
>> >>    presented with an mb frame. This will probably break in interesting
>> >>    ways, but it's nice and simple from an implementation PoV. With this
>> >>    we don't need the declaration discussed above either.
>> >>
>> >> 2. Add a check at runtime and drop the frames if they are mb-enabled and
>> >>    the program doesn't understand it. This is relatively simple to
>> >>    implement, but it also makes for difficult-to-understand issues (why
>> >>    are my packets suddenly being dropped?), and it will incur runtime
>> >>    overhead.
>> >>
>> >> 3. Reject loading of programs that are not MB-aware when running in an
>> >>    MB-enabled mode. This would make things break in more obvious ways,
>> >>    and still allow a userspace loader to declare a program "MB-aware" to
>> >>    force it to run if necessary. The problem then becomes at what level
>> >>    to block this?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I think there's another potential problem with this as well: what happens to
>> > already loaded programs that are not MB-aware? Are they forcibly unloaded?
>>
>> I'd say probably the opposite: You can't toggle whatever switch we end
>> up with if there are any non-MB-aware programs (you'd have to unload
>> them first)...
>>
>> >>    Doing this at the driver level is not enough: while a particular
>> >>    driver knows if it's running in multi-buff mode, we can't know for
>> >>    sure if a particular XDP program is multi-buff aware at attach time:
>> >>    it could be tail-calling other programs, or redirecting packets to
>> >>    another interface where it will be processed by a non-MB aware
>> >>    program.
>> >>
>> >>    So another option is to make it a global toggle: e.g., create a new
>> >>    sysctl to enable multi-buffer. If this is set, reject loading any XDP
>> >>    program that doesn't support multi-buffer mode, and if it's unset,
>> >>    disable multi-buffer mode in all drivers. This will make it explicit
>> >>    when the multi-buffer mode is used, and prevent any accidental subtle
>> >>    malfunction of existing XDP programs. The drawback is that it's a
>> >>    mode switch, so more configuration complexity.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Could we combine the last two bits here into a global toggle that doesn't
>> > require a sysctl? If any driver is put into multi-buffer mode, then the system
>> > switches to requiring all programs be multi-buffer? When the last multi-buffer
>> > enabled driver switches out of multi-buffer, remove the system-wide
>> > restriction?
>>
>> Well, the trouble here is that we don't necessarily have an explicit
>> "multi-buf mode" for devices. For instance, you could raise the MTU of a
>> device without it necessarily involving any XDP multi-buffer stuff (if
>> you're not running XDP on that device). So if we did turn "raising the
>> MTU" into such a mode switch, we would end up blocking any MTU changes
>> if any XDP programs are loaded. Or having an MTU change cause a
>> force-unload of all XDP programs.
>
> MTU change that bumps driver into multi-buf mode or enable
> the header split that also bumps it into multi-buf mode
> probably shouldn't be allowed when non-mb aware xdp prog is attached.
> That would be the simplest and least surprising behavior.
> Force unload could cause security issues.

Yeah, I agree, force-unload is not a good solution - I mostly mentioned
it for completeness.

I think it would be fine for a driver to disallow config changes if a
non-mb-aware program is loaded; that basically amounts to the checks
drivers do already if an XDP-program is loaded, so we could just keep
those around for the non-mb-case.

>> Neither of those are desirable outcomes, I think; and if we add a
>> separate "XDP multi-buff" switch, we might as well make it system-wide?
>
> If we have an internal flag 'this driver supports multi-buf xdp' cannot we
> make xdp_redirect to linearize in case the packet is being redirected
> to non multi-buf aware driver (potentially with corresponding non mb aware xdp
> progs attached) from mb aware driver?

Hmm, the assumption that XDP frames take up at most one page has been
fundamental from the start of XDP. So what does linearise mean in this
context? If we get a 9k packet, should we dynamically allocate a
multi-page chunk of contiguous memory and copy the frame into that, or
were you thinking something else?

-Toke

Powered by blists - more mailing lists