netdev - Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/4] Add XDP rx hw hints support performing XDP

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: <D4N2N1YKKI54.1WAGONIYZH0Y4@bobby>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2024 15:55:11 +0200
From: "Arthur Fabre" <afabre@...udflare.com>
To: "Jesper Dangaard Brouer" <hawk@...nel.org>, "Daniel Xu" <dxu@...uu.xyz>,
 "Stanislav Fomichev" <stfomichev@...il.com>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>, "Lorenzo
 Bianconi" <lorenzo@...nel.org>, "Lorenzo Bianconi"
 <lorenzo.bianconi@...hat.com>, "Jakub Sitnicki" <jakub@...udflare.com>,
 "Alexander Lobakin" <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
 <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <ast@...nel.org>, <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>, <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, <pabeni@...hat.com>, <sdf@...ichev.me>,
 <tariqt@...dia.com>, <saeedm@...dia.com>, <anthony.l.nguyen@...el.com>,
 <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, <intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org>,
 <mst@...hat.com>, <jasowang@...hat.com>, <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
 <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>, "kernel-team" <kernel-team@...udflare.com>,
 "Yan Zhai" <yan@...udflare.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC bpf-next 0/4] Add XDP rx hw hints support performing
 XDP_REDIRECT

On Fri Oct 4, 2024 at 12:38 PM CEST, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> [...]
> >>> There are two different use-cases for the metadata:
> >>>
> >>> * "Hardware" metadata (like the hash, rx_timestamp...). There are only a
> >>>    few well known fields, and only XDP can access them to set them as
> >>>    metadata, so storing them in a struct somewhere could make sense.
> >>>
> >>> * Arbitrary metadata used by services. Eg a TC filter could set a field
> >>>    describing which service a packet is for, and that could be reused for
> >>>    iptables, routing, socket dispatch...
> >>>    Similarly we could set a "packet_id" field that uniquely identifies a
> >>>    packet so we can trace it throughout the network stack (through
> >>>    clones, encap, decap, userspace services...).
> >>>    The skb->mark, but with more room, and better support for sharing it.
> >>>
> >>> We can only know the layout ahead of time for the first one. And they're
> >>> similar enough in their requirements (need to be stored somewhere in the
> >>> SKB, have a way of retrieving each one individually, that it seems to
> >>> make sense to use a common API).
> >>
> >> Why not have the following layout then?
> >>
> >> +---------------+-------------------+----------------------------------------+------+
> >> | more headroom | user-defined meta | hw-meta (potentially fixed skb format) | data |
> >> +---------------+-------------------+----------------------------------------+------+
> >>                  ^                                                            ^
> >>              data_meta                                                      data
> >>
> >> You obviously still have a problem of communicating the layout if you
> >> have some redirects in between, but you, in theory still have this
> >> problem with user-defined metadata anyway (unless I'm missing
> >> something).
> >>
>
> Hmm, I think you are missing something... As far as I'm concerned we are
> discussing placing the KV data after the xdp_frame, and not in the XDP
> data_meta area (as your drawing suggests).  The xdp_frame is stored at
> the very top of the headroom.  Lorenzo's patchset is extending struct
> xdp_frame and now we are discussing to we can make a more flexible API
> for extending this. I understand that Toke confirmed this here [3].  Let
> me know if I missed something :-)
>
>   [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/874j62u1lb.fsf@toke.dk/
>
> As part of designing this flexible API, we/Toke are trying hard not to
> tie this to a specific data area.  This is a good API design, keeping it
> flexible enough that we can move things around should the need arise.

+1. And if we have an API for doing this for user-defined metadata, it
seems like we might as well use it for hardware metadata too.

With something roughly like:

    *val get(id)

    set(id, *val)

with pre-defined ids for hardware metadata, consumers don't need to know 
the layout, or where / how the data is stored.

Under the hood we can implement it however we want, and change it in the
future.

I was initially thinking we could store hardware metadata the same way
as user defined metadata, but Toke and Lorenzo seem to prefer storing it
in a fixed struct.