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: <20220901101401.GC4334@breakpoint.cc>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 12:14:01 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        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

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net> wrote:
> 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:
> > 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. :(

Compared to what?

> > > 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?)

See my reply to Alexey, immediate goal was to get rid of the indirect
calls by providing a tailored/jitted equivalent of nf_hook_slow().

The next step could be to allow implementation of netfilter hooks
(i.e., kernel modules that call nf_register_net_hook()) in bpf
but AFAIU it requires addition of BPF_PROG_TYPE_NETFILTER etc.

After that, yes, one could think about how to jit nft_do_chain() and
all the rest of the nft machinery.