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: <20220831215737.GE15107@breakpoint.cc>
Date:   Wed, 31 Aug 2022 23:57:37 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        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

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

Err, it IS used, else I would not have sent this patch.

> 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.

I doubt it had 0 users.  Those users probably moved to something
better?

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

Its just 160 LOC or so, I don't see it has a huge technical debt.

> > 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 ?

Immediate goal: get rid of all indirect calls from NF_HOOK()
invocations. Its about 2% speedup in my tests (with connection
tracking+defrag enabled).

This series changes prototype of the callbacks to int foo(struct *),
so I think it would be possible to build on this and allow attaching raw
bpf progs/implement what is now a netfilter kernel module as a bpf
program.

I have not spent time on this so far though, so I don't know yet
how the "please attach prog id 12345 at FORWARD with prio 42" should
be done.

> Optimize nft run-time with on the fly generation of bpf byte code ?

This could be done too, so far this JITs nf_hook_slow() only.
The big question for nft run-time would be how and where to do the JIT
translation.

I think that "nft run time jit" would be step 3, after allowing
(re)implementation of netfilter modules via bpf programs.