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: <20220902175216.GB4165@breakpoint.cc>
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 19:52:16 +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:
> > 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.
> 
> We were adding new prog and maps types in the past.
> Now new features are being added differently.
> All of the networking either works with sk_buff-s or xdp frames.
> We try hard not to add any new uapi helpers.
> Everything is moving to kfuncs.
> Other sub-systems should be able to use bpf without touching
> the bpf core. See hid-bpf as an example.
> It needs several verifier improvements, but doesn't need
> new prog types, helpers, etc.

I don't see how it can be done without a new prog type, the bpf progs
would need access to "nf_hook_state" struct, passed as argument
to nf_hook_slow() (and down to the individual xt_foo modules...).

We can't change the existing netfilter hook prototype to go by
sk_buff * as that doesn't have all information, most prominent are
the input and output net_device, but also okfn is needed for async
reinject (nf_queue), the hook location and so on.

> > After that, yes, one could think about how to jit nft_do_chain() and
> > all the rest of the nft machinery.
> 
> Sounds like a ton of work. All that just to accelerate nft a bit?
> I think there are more impactful projects to work on.
> For example, accelerating classic iptables with bpf would immediately
> help a bunch of users.

Maybe, but from the problem points and the required effort it doesn't matter
if the chosen target is iptables or nftables; as far as the time/effort
needed I'd say they are identical.

The hard issues that need to be solved first are the same; they reside
in the netfilter core and not in the specific interpreter (nft_do_chain
vs. ipt_do_table and friends).

nf_tables might be *slightly* easier once that point would be reached
because the core functionality is more integrated with nf_tables whereas
in iptables there is more copypastry (ipt_do_table, ip6t_do_table,
ebt_do_table, ...).