netdev - Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: nf

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: <1cc40302-f006-31a7-b270-30813b8f4b67@iogearbox.net>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 23:49:43 +0200
From:   Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:     Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...nel.org>,
        netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: nf_tables: add ebpf expression

On 8/31/22 7:26 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 8:53 AM Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> wrote:
>> Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> 1 and 2 have the upside that its easy to handle a 'file not found'
>>>> error.
>>>
>>> I'm strongly against calling into bpf from the inner guts of nft.
>>> Nack to all options discussed in this thread.
>>> None of them make any sense.
>>
>> -v please.  I can just rework userspace to allow going via xt_bpf
>> but its brain damaged.
> 
> Right. xt_bpf was a dead end from the start.
> It's time to deprecate it and remove it.
> 
>> This helps gradually moving towards move epbf for those that
>> still heavily rely on the classic forwarding path.
> 
> No one is using it.
> If it was, we would have seen at least one bug report over
> all these years. We've seen none.
> 
> tbh we had a fair share of wrong design decisions that look
> very reasonable early on and turned out to be useless with
> zero users.
> BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_ACT and BPF_PROG_TYPE_LWT*
> are in this category. > All this code does is bit rot.

+1

> As a minimum we shouldn't step on the same rakes.
> xt_ebpf would be the same dead code as xt_bpf.

+1, and on top, the user experience will just be horrible. :(

>> If you are open to BPF_PROG_TYPE_NETFILTER I can go that route
>> as well, raw bpf program attachment via NF_HOOK and the bpf dispatcher,
>> but it will take significantly longer to get there.
>>
>> It involves reviving
>> https://lore.kernel.org/netfilter-devel/20211014121046.29329-1-fw@strlen.de/
> 
> I missed it earlier. What is the end goal ?
> Optimize nft run-time with on the fly generation of bpf byte code ?

Or rather to provide a pendant to nft given existence of xt_bpf, and the
latter will be removed at some point? (If so, can't we just deprecate the
old xt_bpf?)

Thanks,
Daniel