| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAG=2xmMrkNfADw=mwrmj_5yMBFKY3DTeCj12V0g7YybkOFMoEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 07:36:17 +0000
From: Adrián Moreno <amorenoz@...hat.com>
To: Ilya Maximets <i.maximets@....org>
Cc: Aaron Conole <aconole@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, echaudro@...hat.com,
horms@...nel.org, dev@...nvswitch.org, Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@....org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 6/9] net: openvswitch: store sampling
probability in cb.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 01:26:39PM GMT, Ilya Maximets wrote:
> On 6/17/24 09:08, Adrián Moreno wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 12:55:59PM GMT, Aaron Conole wrote:
> >> Adrian Moreno <amorenoz@...hat.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> The behavior of actions might not be the exact same if they are being
> >>> executed inside a nested sample action. Store the probability of the
> >>> parent sample action in the skb's cb area.
> >>
> >> What does that mean?
> >>
> >
> > Emit action, for instance, needs the probability so that psample
> > consumers know what was the sampling rate applied. Also, the way we
> > should inform about packet drops (via kfree_skb_reason) changes (see
> > patch 7/9).
> >
> >>> Use the probability in emit_sample to pass it down to psample.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Moreno <amorenoz@...hat.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h | 3 ++-
> >>> net/openvswitch/actions.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >>> net/openvswitch/datapath.h | 3 +++
> >>> net/openvswitch/vport.c | 1 +
> >>> 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h b/include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h
> >>> index a0e9dde0584a..9d675725fa2b 100644
> >>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h
> >>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/openvswitch.h
> >>> @@ -649,7 +649,8 @@ enum ovs_flow_attr {
> >>> * Actions are passed as nested attributes.
> >>> *
> >>> * Executes the specified actions with the given probability on a per-packet
> >>> - * basis.
> >>> + * basis. Nested actions will be able to access the probability value of the
> >>> + * parent @OVS_ACTION_ATTR_SAMPLE.
> >>> */
> >>> enum ovs_sample_attr {
> >>> OVS_SAMPLE_ATTR_UNSPEC,
> >>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/actions.c b/net/openvswitch/actions.c
> >>> index 3b4dba0ded59..33f6d93ba5e4 100644
> >>> --- a/net/openvswitch/actions.c
> >>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/actions.c
> >>> @@ -1048,12 +1048,15 @@ static int sample(struct datapath *dp, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >>> struct nlattr *sample_arg;
> >>> int rem = nla_len(attr);
> >>> const struct sample_arg *arg;
> >>> + u32 init_probability;
> >>> bool clone_flow_key;
> >>> + int err;
> >>>
> >>> /* The first action is always 'OVS_SAMPLE_ATTR_ARG'. */
> >>> sample_arg = nla_data(attr);
> >>> arg = nla_data(sample_arg);
> >>> actions = nla_next(sample_arg, &rem);
> >>> + init_probability = OVS_CB(skb)->probability;
> >>>
> >>> if ((arg->probability != U32_MAX) &&
> >>> (!arg->probability || get_random_u32() > arg->probability)) {
> >>> @@ -1062,9 +1065,21 @@ static int sample(struct datapath *dp, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> + if (init_probability) {
> >>> + OVS_CB(skb)->probability = ((u64)OVS_CB(skb)->probability *
> >>> + arg->probability / U32_MAX);
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + OVS_CB(skb)->probability = arg->probability;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>
> >> I'm confused by this. Eventually, integer arithmetic will practically
> >> guarantee that nested sample() calls will go to 0. So eventually, the
> >> test above will be impossible to meet mathematically.
> >>
> >> OTOH, you could argue that a 1% of 50% is low anyway, but it still would
> >> have a positive probability count, and still be possible for
> >> get_random_u32() call to match.
> >>
> >
> > Using OVS's probability semantics, we can express probabilities as low
> > as (100/U32_MAX)% which is pretty low indeed. However, just because the
> > probability of executing the action is low I don't think we should not
> > report it.
> >
> > Rethinking the integer arithmetics, it's true that we should avoid
> > hitting zero on the division, eg: nesting 6x 1% sampling rates will make
> > the result be zero which will make probability restoration fail on the
> > way back. Threrefore, the new probability should be at least 1.
> >
> >
> >> I'm not sure about this particular change. Why do we need it?
> >>
> >
> > Why do we need to propagate the probability down to nested "sample"
> > actions? or why do we need to store the probability in the cb area in
> > the first place?
> >
> > The former: Just for correctness as only storing the last one would be
> > incorrect. Although I don't know of any use for nested "sample" actions.
>
> I think, we can drop this for now. All the user interfaces specify
> the probability per action. So, it should be fine to report the
> probability of the action that emitted the sample without taking into
> account the whole timeline of that packet. Besides, packet can leave
> OVS and go back loosing the metadata, so it will not actually be a
> full solution anyway. Single-action metadata is easier to define.
>
Sure, I guess we can drop it, I don't think there is a use case for nested
samples anyway.
> > The latter: To pass it down to psample so that sample receivers know how
> > the sampling rate applied (and, e.g: do throughput estimations like OVS
> > does with IPFIX).
> >
> >
> >>> clone_flow_key = !arg->exec;
> >>> - return clone_execute(dp, skb, key, 0, actions, rem, last,
> >>> - clone_flow_key);
> >>> + err = clone_execute(dp, skb, key, 0, actions, rem, last,
> >>> + clone_flow_key);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!last)
> >>
> >> Is this right? Don't we only want to set the probability on the last
> >> action? Should the test be 'if (last)'?
> >>
> >
> > This is restoring the parent's probability after the actions in the
> > current sample action have been executed.
> >
> > If it was the last action there is no need to restore the probability
> > back to the parent's (or zero if it's there's only one level) since no
> > further action will require it. And more importantly, if it's the last
> > action, the packet gets free'ed inside that "branch" so we must not
> > access its memory.
> >
> >
> >>> + OVS_CB(skb)->probability = init_probability;
> >>> +
> >>> + return err;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> /* When 'last' is true, clone() should always consume the 'skb'.
> >>> @@ -1313,6 +1328,7 @@ static int execute_emit_sample(struct datapath *dp, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >>> struct psample_metadata md = {};
> >>> struct vport *input_vport;
> >>> const struct nlattr *a;
> >>> + u32 rate;
> >>> int rem;
> >>>
> >>> for (a = nla_data(attr), rem = nla_len(attr); rem > 0;
> >>> @@ -1337,8 +1353,11 @@ static int execute_emit_sample(struct datapath *dp, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >>>
> >>> md.in_ifindex = input_vport->dev->ifindex;
> >>> md.trunc_size = skb->len - OVS_CB(skb)->cutlen;
> >>> + md.rate_as_probability = 1;
> >>> +
> >>> + rate = OVS_CB(skb)->probability ? OVS_CB(skb)->probability : U32_MAX;
> >>>
> >>> - psample_sample_packet(&psample_group, skb, 0, &md);
> >>> + psample_sample_packet(&psample_group, skb, rate, &md);
> >>> #endif
> >>>
> >>> return 0;
> >>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/datapath.h b/net/openvswitch/datapath.h
> >>> index 0cd29971a907..9ca6231ea647 100644
> >>> --- a/net/openvswitch/datapath.h
> >>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/datapath.h
> >>> @@ -115,12 +115,15 @@ struct datapath {
> >>> * fragmented.
> >>> * @acts_origlen: The netlink size of the flow actions applied to this skb.
> >>> * @cutlen: The number of bytes from the packet end to be removed.
> >>> + * @probability: The sampling probability that was applied to this skb; 0 means
> >>> + * no sampling has occurred; U32_MAX means 100% probability.
> >>> */
> >>> struct ovs_skb_cb {
> >>> struct vport *input_vport;
> >>> u16 mru;
> >>> u16 acts_origlen;
> >>> u32 cutlen;
> >>> + u32 probability;
> >>> };
> >>> #define OVS_CB(skb) ((struct ovs_skb_cb *)(skb)->cb)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/net/openvswitch/vport.c b/net/openvswitch/vport.c
> >>> index 972ae01a70f7..8732f6e51ae5 100644
> >>> --- a/net/openvswitch/vport.c
> >>> +++ b/net/openvswitch/vport.c
> >>> @@ -500,6 +500,7 @@ int ovs_vport_receive(struct vport *vport, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >>> OVS_CB(skb)->input_vport = vport;
> >>> OVS_CB(skb)->mru = 0;
> >>> OVS_CB(skb)->cutlen = 0;
> >>> + OVS_CB(skb)->probability = 0;
> >>> if (unlikely(dev_net(skb->dev) != ovs_dp_get_net(vport->dp))) {
> >>> u32 mark;
> >>
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists