netdev - Re: [net v5 2/3] net: sched: add check tc_skip

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: <CAMDZJNXL5qSfFv54A=RrMwHe8DOv48EfrypHb1FFSUFu36-9DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 11 Dec 2021 01:46:38 +0800
From:   Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
To:     John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        KP Singh <kpsingh@...nel.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Lobakin <alexandr.lobakin@...el.com>,
        Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [net v5 2/3] net: sched: add check tc_skip_classify in sch egress

On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:37 AM Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 12:43 AM John Fastabend
> <john.fastabend@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > xiangxia.m.yue@ wrote:
> > > From: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
> > >
> > > Try to resolve the issues as below:
> > > * We look up and then check tc_skip_classify flag in net
> > >   sched layer, even though skb don't want to be classified.
> > >   That case may consume a lot of cpu cycles. This patch
> > >   is useful when there are a lot of filters with different
> > >   prio. There is ~5 prio in in production, ~1% improvement.
> > >
> > >   Rules as below:
> > >   $ for id in $(seq 1 5); do
> > >   $       tc filter add ... egress prio $id ... action mirred egress redirect dev ifb0
> > >   $ done
> > >
> > > * bpf_redirect may be invoked in egress path. If we don't
> > >   check the flags and then return immediately, the packets
> > >   will loopback.
> >
> > This would be the naive case right? Meaning the BPF program is
> > doing a redirect without any logic or is buggy?
> >
> > Can you map out how this happens for me, I'm not fully sure I
> > understand the exact concern. Is it possible for BPF programs
> > that used to see packets no longer see the packet as expected?
> >
> > Is this the path you are talking about?
> Hi John
> Tx ethx -> __dev_queue_xmit -> sch_handle_egress
> ->  execute BPF program on ethx with bpf_redirect(ifb0) ->
> -> ifb_xmit -> ifb_ri_tasklet -> dev_queue_xmit -> __dev_queue_xmit
> the packets loopbacks, that means bpf_redirect doesn't work with ifb
> netdev, right ?
> so in sch_handle_egress, I add the check skb_skip_tc_classify().
>
> >  rx ethx  ->
> >    execute BPF program on ethx with bpf_redirect(ifb0) ->
> >      __skb_dequeue @ifb tc_skip_classify = 1 ->
> >        dev_queue_xmit() ->
> >           sch_handle_egress() ->
> >             execute BPF program again
> >
> > I can't see why you want to skip that second tc BPF program,
> > or for that matter any tc filter there. In general how do you
> > know that is the correct/expected behavior? Before the above
> > change it would have been called, what if its doing useful
> > work.
> bpf_redirect works fine on ingress with ifb
> __netif_receive_skb_core -> sch_handle_ingress -> bpf_redirect (ifb0)
> -> ifb_xmit -> netif_receive_skb -> __netif_receive_skb_core
> but
> __netif_receive_skb_core --> skb_skip_tc_classify(so the packets will
> execute the BPF progam again)
so the packets will NOT execute the BPF progam again)

> > Also its not clear how your ifb setup is built or used. That
> > might help understand your use case. I would just remove the
> > IFB altogether and the above discussion is mute.
> tc filter add dev veth1 egress bpf direct-action obj
> test_bpf_redirect_ifb.o sec redirect_ifb
>
> the test_bpf_redirect_ifb  bpf progam:
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/* Copyright (c) 2021 DiDi Global */
> +
> +#include <linux/bpf.h>
> +#include <bpf/bpf_helpers.h>
> +
> +SEC("redirect_ifb")
> +int redirect(struct __sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> +       return bpf_redirect(skb->ifindex + 1 /* ifbX */, 0);
> +}
> +
> +char __license[] SEC("license") = "GPL";
>
> The 3/3 is selftest:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/netdevbpf/patch/20211208145459.9590-4-xiangxia.m.yue@gmail.com/
>
> > Thanks,
> > John
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards, Tonghao



-- 
Best regards, Tonghao