[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d8184124-3ff6-9c3c-07cf-78407738d616@meta.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 09:58:19 -0700
From: Yonghong Song <yhs@...a.com>
To: Louis DeLosSantos <louis.delos.devel@...il.com>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...gle.com>, razor@...ckwall.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bpf: add table ID to bpf_fib_lookup BPF helper
On 5/26/23 7:07 AM, Louis DeLosSantos wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:48:12PM -0700, John Fastabend wrote:
>> Louis DeLosSantos wrote:
>>> Add ability to specify routing table ID to the `bpf_fib_lookup` BPF
>>> helper.
>>>
>>> A new field `tbid` is added to `struct bpf_fib_lookup` used as
>>> parameters to the `bpf_fib_lookup` BPF helper.
>>>
>>> When the helper is called with the `BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_DIRECT` flag and the
>>> `tbid` field in `struct bpf_fib_lookup` is greater then 0, the `tbid`
>>> field will be used as the table ID for the fib lookup.
>>>
>>> If the `tbid` does not exist the fib lookup will fail with
>>> `BPF_FIB_LKUP_RET_NOT_FWDED`.
>>>
>>> The `tbid` field becomes a union over the vlan related output fields in
>>> `struct bpf_fib_lookup` and will be zeroed immediately after usage.
>>>
>>> This functionality is useful in containerized environments.
>>>
>>> For instance, if a CNI wants to dictate the next-hop for traffic leaving
>>> a container it can create a container-specific routing table and perform
>>> a fib lookup against this table in a "host-net-namespace-side" TC program.
>>>
>>> This functionality also allows `ip rule` like functionality at the TC
>>> layer, allowing an eBPF program to pick a routing table based on some
>>> aspect of the sk_buff.
>>>
>>> As a concrete use case, this feature will be used in Cilium's SRv6 L3VPN
>>> datapath.
>>>
>>> When egress traffic leaves a Pod an eBPF program attached by Cilium will
>>> determine which VRF the egress traffic should target, and then perform a
>>> FIB lookup in a specific table representing this VRF's FIB.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Louis DeLosSantos <louis.delos.devel@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>> include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 17 ++++++++++++++---
>>> net/core/filter.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>>> tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 17 ++++++++++++++---
>>> 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Looks good one question. Should we hide tbid behind a flag we have
>> lots of room. Is there any concern a user could feed a bpf_fib_lookup
>> into the helper without clearing the vlan fields? Perhaps by
>> pulling the struct from a map or something where it had been
>> previously used.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>
> This is a fair point.
>
> I could imagine a scenario where an individual is caching bpf_fib_lookup structs,
> pulls in a kernel with this change, and is now accidentally feeding the stale vlan
> fields as table ID's, since their code is using `BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_DIRECT` with
> the old semantics.
>
> Guarding with a new flag like this (just a quick example, not a full diff)...
>
> ```
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> index 2096fbb328a9b..22095ccaaa64d 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> @@ -6823,6 +6823,7 @@ enum {
> BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_DIRECT = (1U << 0),
> BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_OUTPUT = (1U << 1),
> BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_SKIP_NEIGH = (1U << 2),
> + BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_TBID = (1U << 3),
> };
>
> enum {
> diff --git a/net/core/filter.c b/net/core/filter.c
> index 6f710aa0a54b3..9b78460e39af2 100644
> --- a/net/core/filter.c
> +++ b/net/core/filter.c
> @@ -5803,7 +5803,7 @@ static int bpf_ipv4_fib_lookup(struct net *net, struct bpf_fib_lookup *params,
> u32 tbid = l3mdev_fib_table_rcu(dev) ? : RT_TABLE_MAIN;
> struct fib_table *tb;
>
> - if (params->tbid) {
> + if (flags & BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_TBID) {
> tbid = params->tbid;
> /* zero out for vlan output */
> params->tbid = 0;
> ```
>
> Maybe a bit safer, you're right.
>
> In this case the semantics around `BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_DIRECT` remain exactly the same,
> and if we do `flags = BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_DIRECT | BPF_FIB_LOOKUP_TBID`, only then will
> the `tbid` field in the incoming params wil be considered.
>
> If I squint at this, it technically also allows us to consider `tbid=0` as a
> valid table id, since the caller now explicitly opts into it, where previously
> table id 0 was not selectable, tho I don't know if there's a *real* use case
> for selecting the `all` table.
>
> I'm happy to make this change, what are your thoughts?
Sounds good to me so we won't reject legal table id.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists