[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220831125608.GA8153@breakpoint.cc>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 14:56:08 +0200
From: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...nel.org>
Cc: Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: nf_tables: add ebpf expression
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Tag and program id are dumped to userspace on 'list' to allow to see which
> > program is in use in case the filename isn't available/present.
>
> It seems a bit odd to include the file path in the kernel as well.
Its needed to be able to re-load the ruleset.
> For
> one thing, the same object can be pinned multiple times in different
> paths (even in different mount namespaces),
Sure.
> and there's also nothing
> preventing a different program to have been substituted by the pinned
> one by the time the value is echoed back.
Yes, but what would you expect it should do?
> Also, there's nothing checking that the path attribute actually contains
> a path, so it's really just an arbitrary label that the kernel promises
> to echo back
Yes exactly.
> But doesn't NFT already have a per-rule comment feature,
> so why add another specifically for BPF?
You can attach up to 256 bytes to a rule, yes.
Might not be enough for a longer path, and there could be multiple
expressions in the same rule.
This way was the most simple solution.
> Instead we could just teach the
> userspace utility to extract metadata from the BPF program (based on the
> ID) like bpftool does. This would include the program name, BTW, so it
> does have a semantic identifier.
Sure, I could change the grammar so it expects a tag or ID, e.g.
'ebpf id 42'
If thats preferred, I can change this, it avoids the need for storing
the name.
> > cbpf bytecode isn't supported.
> > add rule ... ebpf pinned "/sys/fs/bpf/myprog"
>
> Any plan to also teach the nft binary to load a BPF program from an ELF
> file (instead of relying on pinning)?
I used pinning because that is what '-m bpf' uses.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists