From: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org>
Cc: "Maciej Żenczykowski" <maze@google.com>,
"Daniel Borkmann" <borkmann@iogearbox.net>,
"Alexei Starovoitov" <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
BPF-dev-list <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
"Lorenzo Bianconi" <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>,
"Lorenz Bauer" <lmb@cloudflare.com>,
"John Fastabend" <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
"Jakub Kicinski" <kuba@kernel.org>,
"Shaun Crampton" <shaun@tigera.io>,
"David Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
"Marek Majkowski" <marek@cloudflare.com>,
brouer@redhat.com
Subject: Re: BPF redirect API design issue for BPF-prog MTU feedback?
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2020 12:34:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ft7ffk67.fsf@toke.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200918120016.7007f437@carbon>
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2020 12:11:33 -0700
> Saeed Mahameed <saeed@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 05:54 -0700, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 5:39 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>> > <brouer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > As you likely know[1] I'm looking into moving the MTU check (for
>> > > TC-BPF) in __bpf_skb_max_len() when e.g. called by
>> > > bpf_skb_adjust_room(), because when redirecting packets to
>> > > another netdev it is not correct to limit the MTU based on the
>> > > incoming netdev.
>> > >
>> > > I was looking at doing the MTU check in bpf_redirect() helper,
>> > > because at this point we know the redirect to netdev, and
>> > > returning an indication/error that MTU was exceed, would allow
>> > > the BPF-prog logic to react, e.g. sending ICMP (instead of packet
>> > > getting silently dropped).
>> > > BUT this is not possible because bpf_redirect(index, flags) helper
>> > > don't provide the packet context-object (so I cannot lookup the
>> > > packet length).
>> > >
>> > > Seeking input:
>> > >
>> > > Should/can we change the bpf_redirect API or create a new helper
>> > > with packet-context?
>> > >
>> > > Note: We have the same need for the packet context for XDP when
>> > > redirecting the new multi-buffer packets, as not all destination
>> > > netdev will support these new multi-buffer packets.
>> > >
>> > > I can of-cause do the MTU checks on kernel-side in
>> > > skb_do_redirect, but then how do people debug this? as packet
>> > > will basically be silently dropped.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > (Looking at how does BPF-prog logic handle MTU today)
>> > >
>> > > How do bpf_skb_adjust_room() report that the MTU was exceeded?
>> > > Unfortunately it uses a common return code -ENOTSUPP which used
>> > > for multiple cases (include MTU exceeded). Thus, the BPF-prog
>> > > logic cannot use this reliably to know if this is a MTU exceeded
>> > > event. (Looked BPF-prog code and they all simply exit with
>> > > TC_ACT_SHOT for all error codes, cloudflare have the most
>> > > advanced handling with metrics->errors_total_encap_adjust_failed++).
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [1]
>> > > https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/159921182827.1260200.9699352760916903781.stgit@firesoul/
>> > > --
>> > > Best regards,
>> > > Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>> > > MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
>> > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
>> > >
>> >
>> > (a) the current state of the world seems very hard to use correctly,
>> > so adding new apis, or even changing existing ones seems ok to me.
>> > especially if this just means changing what error code they return
>> >
>> > (b) another complexity with bpf_redirect() is you can call it, it
>> > can succeed, but then you can not return TC_ACT_REDIRECT from the
>> > bpf program, which effectively makes the earlier *successful*
>> > bpf_redirect() call an utter no-op.
>> >
>> > (bpf_redirect() just determines what a future return TC_ACT_REDIRECT
>> > will do)
>> >
>> > so if you bpf_redirect to interface with larger mtu, then increase
>> > packet size,
>>
>> why would you redirect then touch the packet afterwards ?
>> if you have a bad program, then it is a user issue.
>>
>> > then return TC_ACT_OK, then you potentially end up with excessively
>> > large packet egressing through original interface (with small mtu).
>> >
>
> This is a good point. As bpf_skb_adjust_room() can just be run after
> bpf_redirect() call, then a MTU check in bpf_redirect() actually
> doesn't make much sense. As clever/bad BPF program can then avoid the
> MTU check anyhow. This basically means that we have to do the MTU
> check (again) on kernel side anyhow to catch such clever/bad BPF
> programs. (And I don't like wasting cycles on doing the same check two
> times).
>
> If we do the MTU check on the kernel side, then there are no feedback
> to the program, and how are end-users going to debug this?
The same way any other MTU-related error is seen? Isn't there a counter
or something? Presumably (since this is in the skb path) it would also
be caught by drop_monitor?
-Toke
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-18 10:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-17 12:38 BPF redirect API design issue for BPF-prog MTU feedback? Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-17 12:54 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2020-09-17 19:11 ` Saeed Mahameed
2020-09-18 10:00 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-18 10:34 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [this message]
2020-09-18 23:06 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2020-09-21 10:37 ` Lorenz Bauer
2020-09-21 12:49 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-21 15:08 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-09-21 16:21 ` Marek Zavodsky
2020-09-21 21:17 ` Willem de Bruijn
2020-09-22 9:15 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-21 16:26 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-22 6:56 ` Eyal Birger
2020-09-21 18:04 ` John Fastabend
2020-10-06 11:45 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-09-21 10:42 ` Lorenz Bauer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ft7ffk67.fsf@toke.dk \
--to=toke@redhat.com \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=borkmann@iogearbox.net \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
--cc=lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com \
--cc=marek@cloudflare.com \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=saeed@kernel.org \
--cc=shaun@tigera.io \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).