netdev - Re: [RFC v2 bpf-next 2/7] drivers: net: turn on XDP features

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]

Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 23:15:47 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...igine.com>
Cc:     Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        andrii@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org,
        hawk@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com,
        memxor@...il.com, alardam@...il.com, saeedm@...dia.com,
        anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com, gospo@...adcom.com,
        vladimir.oltean@....com, nbd@....name, john@...ozen.org,
        leon@...nel.org, simon.horman@...igine.com, aelior@...vell.com,
        christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr, ecree.xilinx@...il.com,
        mst@...hat.com, bjorn@...nel.org, magnus.karlsson@...el.com,
        maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 bpf-next 2/7] drivers: net: turn on XDP features

Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...igine.com> writes:

> Hi Toke,
>
> On 2023-01-17 22:58:57 +0100, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...igine.com> writes:
>> 
>> > Hi Lorenzo and Marek,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your work.
>> >
>> > On 2023-01-14 16:54:32 +0100, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> 
>> >> Turn 'hw-offload' feature flag on for:
>> >>  - netronome (nfp)
>> >>  - netdevsim.
>> >
>> > Is there a definition of the 'hw-offload' written down somewhere? From 
>> > reading this series I take it is the ability to offload a BPF program?  
>> 
>> Yeah, basically this means "allows loading and attaching programs in
>> XDP_MODE_HW", I suppose :)
>> 
>> > It would also be interesting to read documentation for the other flags 
>> > added in this series.
>> 
>> Yup, we should definitely document them :)
>> 
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_common.c 
>> >> b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_common.c
>> >> index 18fc9971f1c8..5a8ddeaff74d 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_common.c
>> >> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/netronome/nfp/nfp_net_common.c
>> >> @@ -2529,10 +2529,14 @@ static void nfp_net_netdev_init(struct nfp_net *nn)
>> >>  	netdev->features &= ~NETIF_F_HW_VLAN_STAG_RX;
>> >>  	nn->dp.ctrl &= ~NFP_NET_CFG_CTRL_RXQINQ;
>> >>  
>> >> +	nn->dp.netdev->xdp_features = NETDEV_XDP_ACT_BASIC |
>> >> +				      NETDEV_XDP_ACT_HW_OFFLOAD;
>> >
>> > If my assumption about the 'hw-offload' flag above is correct I think 
>> > NETDEV_XDP_ACT_HW_OFFLOAD should be conditioned on that the BPF firmware 
>> > flavor is in use.
>> >
>> >     nn->dp.netdev->xdp_features = NETDEV_XDP_ACT_BASIC;
>> >
>> >     if (nn->app->type->id == NFP_APP_BPF_NIC)
>> >         nn->dp.netdev->xdp_features |= NETDEV_XDP_ACT_HW_OFFLOAD;
>> >
>> >> +
>> >>  	/* Finalise the netdev setup */
>> >>  	switch (nn->dp.ops->version) {
>> >>  	case NFP_NFD_VER_NFD3:
>> >>  		netdev->netdev_ops = &nfp_nfd3_netdev_ops;
>> >> +		nn->dp.netdev->xdp_features |= NETDEV_XDP_ACT_XSK_ZEROCOPY;
>> >>  		break;
>> >>  	case NFP_NFD_VER_NFDK:
>> >>  		netdev->netdev_ops = &nfp_nfdk_netdev_ops;
>> >
>> > This is also a wrinkle I would like to understand. Currently NFP support 
>> > zero-copy on NFD3, but not for offloaded BPF programs. But with the BPF 
>> > firmware flavor running the device can still support zero-copy for 
>> > non-offloaded programs.
>> >
>> > Is it a problem that the driver advertises support for both 
>> > hardware-offload _and_ zero-copy at the same time, even if they can't be 
>> > used together but separately?
>> 
>> Hmm, so the idea with this is to only expose feature flags that are
>> supported "right now" (you'll note that some of the drivers turn the
>> REDIRECT_TARGET flag on and off at runtime). Having features that are
>> "supported but in a different configuration" is one of the points of
>> user confusion we want to clear up with the explicit flags.
>> 
>> So I guess it depends a little bit what you mean by "can't be used
>> together"? I believe it's possible to load two programs at the same
>> time, one in HW mode and one in native (driver) mode, right? In this
>> case, could the driver mode program use XSK zerocopy while the HW mode
>> program is also loaded?
>
> Exactly, this is my concern. Two programs can be loaded at the same 
> time, one in HW mode and one in native mode. The program in native mode 
> can use zero-copy at the same time as another program runs in HW mode.
>
> But the program running in HW mode can never use zero-copy.

Hmm, but zero-copy is an AF_XDP feature, and AFAIK offloaded programs
can't use AF_XDP at all? So the zero-copy "feature" is available on the
hardware, it's just intrinsic to that feature that it doesn't work on
offloaded programs?

Which goes back to: yeah, we should document what the feature flags mean :)

-Toke