Message-ID: <CAEf4BzZCAX7h_wMpd9-uQt4smGDj8ToxS=nM6Z+qoV7j-SSVJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Aug 2022 20:51:38 -0700
From:   Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To:     Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc:     Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v1 1/3] bpf: Add skb dynptrs

On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 5:56 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 04:23:16PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 03:58:41PM -0700, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 3:33 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:16:23PM -0700, Joanne Koong wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 12:38 PM Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 10:52:14AM -0700, Joanne Koong wrote:
> > > > > > > > Since we are on bpf_dynptr_write, what is the reason
> > > > > > > > on limiting it to the skb_headlen() ?  Not implying one
> > > > > > > > way is better than another.  would like to undertand the reason
> > > > > > > > behind it since it is not clear in the commit message.
> > > > > > > For bpf_dynptr_write, if we don't limit it to skb_headlen() then there
> > > > > > > may be writes that pull the skb, so any existing data slices to the
> > > > > > > skb must be invalidated. However, in the verifier we can't detect when
> > > > > > > the data slice should be invalidated vs. when it shouldn't (eg
> > > > > > > detecting when a write goes into the paged area vs when the write is
> > > > > > > only in the head). If the prog wants to write into the paged area, I
> > > > > > > think the only way it can work is if it pulls the data first with
> > > > > > > bpf_skb_pull_data before calling bpf_dynptr_write. I will add this to
> > > > > > > the commit message in v2
> > > > > > Note that current verifier unconditionally invalidates PTR_TO_PACKET
> > > > > > after bpf_skb_store_bytes().  Potentially the same could be done for
> > > > > > other new helper like bpf_dynptr_write().  I think this bpf_dynptr_write()
> > > > > > behavior cannot be changed later, so want to raise this possibility here
> > > > > > just in case it wasn't considered before.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for raising this possibility. To me, it seems more intuitive
> > > > > from the user standpoint to have bpf_dynptr_write() on a paged area
> > > > > fail (even if bpf_dynptr_read() on that same offset succeeds) than to
> > > > > have bpf_dynptr_write() always invalidate all dynptr slices related to
> > > > > that skb. I think most writes will be to the data in the head area,
> > > > > which seems unfortunate that bpf_dynptr_writes to the head area would
> > > > > invalidate the dynptr slices regardless.
> > > > >
> > > > > What are your thoughts? Do you think you prefer having
> > > > > bpf_dynptr_write() always work regardless of where the data is? If so,
> > > > > I'm happy to make that change for v2 :)
> > > > Yeah, it sounds like an optimization to avoid unnecessarily
> > > > invalidating the sliced data.
> > > >
> > > > To be honest, I am not sure how often the dynptr_data()+dynptr_write() combo will
> > > > be used considering there is usually a pkt read before a pkt write in
> > > > the pkt modification use case.  If I got that far to have a sliced data pointer
> > > > to satisfy what I need for reading,  I would try to avoid making extra call
> > > > to dyptr_write() to modify it.
> > > >
> > > > I would prefer user can have similar expectation (no need to worry pkt layout)
> > > > between dynptr_read() and dynptr_write(), and also has similar experience to
> > > > the bpf_skb_load_bytes() and bpf_skb_store_bytes().  Otherwise, it is just
> > > > unnecessary rules for user to remember while there is no clear benefit on
> > > > the chance of this optimization.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Are you saying that bpf_dynptr_read() shouldn't read from non-linear
> > > part of skb (and thus match more restrictive bpf_dynptr_write), or are
> > > you saying you'd rather have bpf_dynptr_write() write into non-linear
> > > part but invalidate bpf_dynptr_data() pointers?
> > The latter.  Read and write without worrying about the skb layout.
> >
> > Also, if the prog needs to call a helper to write, it knows the bytes are
> > not in the data pointer.  Then it needs to bpf_skb_pull_data() before
> > it can call write.  However, after bpf_skb_pull_data(), why the prog
> > needs to call the write helper instead of directly getting a new
> > data pointer and write to it?  If the prog needs to write many many
> > bytes, a write helper may then help.
> After another thought, other than the non-linear handling,
> bpf_skb_store_bytes() / dynptr_write() is more useful in
> the 'BPF_F_RECOMPUTE_CSUM | BPF_F_INVALIDATE_HASH' flags.
>
> That said,  my preference is still to have the same expectation on
> non-linear data for both dynptr_read() and dynptr_write().  Considering
> the user can fall back to use bpf_skb_load_bytes() and
> bpf_skb_store_bytes(), I am fine with the current patch also.
>

Honestly, I don't have any specific preference, because I don't have
much specific experience writing networking BPF :)

But considering Jakub's point about trying to unify skb/xdp dynptr,
while I can see how we might have symmetrical dynptr_{read,write}()
for skb case (because you can pull skb), I believe this is not
possible with XDP (e.g., multi-buffer one), so bpf_dynptr_write()
would always be more limited for XDP case.

Or maybe it is possible for XDP and I'm totally wrong here? I'm happy
to be educated about this!

> >
> > >
> > > I guess I agree about consistency and that it seems like in practice
> > > you'd use bpf_dynptr_data() to work with headers and stuff like that
> > > at known locations, and then if you need to modify the rest of payload
> > > you'd do either bpf_skb_load_bytes()/bpf_skb_store_bytes() or
> > > bpf_dynptr_read()/bpf_dynptr_write() which would invalidate
> > > bpf_dynptr_data() pointers (but that would be ok by that time).
> > imo, read, write and then go back to read is less common.
> > writing bytes without first reading them is also less common.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists