From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@iogearbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
maze@google.com, lmb@cloudflare.com, shaun@tigera.io,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@kernel.org>,
marek@cloudflare.com, eyal.birger@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next V3 0/6] bpf: New approach for BPF MTU handling
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 16:00:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201009160010.4b299ac3@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f80ccca63d9_ed74208f8@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch>
On Fri, 09 Oct 2020 13:49:14 -0700 John Fastabend wrote:
> Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> > On Thu, 08 Oct 2020 16:08:57 +0200 Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> > > V3: Drop enforcement of MTU in net-core, leave it to drivers
> >
> > Sorry for being late to the discussion.
> >
> > I absolutely disagree. We had cases in the past where HW would lock up
> > if it was sent a frame with bad geometry.
> >
> > We will not be sprinkling validation checks across the drivers because
> > some reconfiguration path may occasionally yield a bad packet, or it's
> > hard to do something right with BPF.
>
> This is a driver bug then. As it stands today drivers may get hit with
> skb with MTU greater than set MTU as best I can tell.
You're talking about taking it from "maybe this can happen, but will
still be at most jumbo" to "it's going to be very easy to trigger and
length may be > MAX_U16".
> Generally I expect drivers use MTU to configure RX buffers not sure
> how it is going to be used on TX side? Any examples? I just poked
> around through the driver source to see and seems to confirm its
> primarily for RX side configuration with some drivers throwing the
> event down to the firmware for something that I can't see in the code?
Right, but that could just be because nobody expects to get over sized
frames from the stack.
We actively encourage drivers to remove paranoid checks. It's really
not going to be a great experience for driver authors where they need
to consult a list of things they should and shouldn't check.
If we want to do this, the driver interface must most definitely say
MRU and not MTU.
> I'm not suggestiong sprinkling validation checks across the drivers.
> I'm suggesting if the drivers hang we fix them.
We both know the level of testing drivers get, it's unlikely this will
be validated. It's packet of death waiting to happen.
And all this for what? Saving 2 cycles on a branch that will almost
never be taken?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-09 23:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-08 14:08 [PATCH bpf-next V3 0/6] bpf: New approach for BPF MTU handling Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-08 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next V3 1/6] bpf: Remove MTU check in __bpf_skb_max_len Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-09 16:12 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-10-09 18:26 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2020-10-10 10:25 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-08 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next V3 2/6] bpf: bpf_fib_lookup return MTU value as output when looked up Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-09 4:05 ` David Ahern
2020-10-08 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next V3 3/6] bpf: add BPF-helper for MTU checking Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-09 23:29 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2020-10-21 11:32 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-12 15:54 ` Lorenz Bauer
2020-10-08 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next V3 4/6] bpf: make it possible to identify BPF redirected SKBs Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-09 16:47 ` Daniel Borkmann
2020-10-09 18:33 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2020-10-10 11:09 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-12 21:04 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2020-10-08 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next V3 5/6] bpf: drop MTU check when doing TC-BPF redirect to ingress Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-09 23:17 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2020-10-08 14:09 ` [PATCH bpf-next V3 6/6] net: inline and splitup is_skb_forwardable Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-09 16:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next V3 0/6] bpf: New approach for BPF MTU handling Jakub Kicinski
2020-10-09 20:49 ` John Fastabend
2020-10-09 21:07 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-10-09 21:57 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
2020-10-09 23:00 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2020-10-10 10:44 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-10 16:32 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-10-10 23:52 ` John Fastabend
2020-10-11 23:30 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-10-13 20:40 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-10-13 23:07 ` Jakub Kicinski
2020-10-13 23:37 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2020-10-13 23:54 ` Maciej Żenczykowski
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=20201009160010.4b299ac3@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=borkmann@iogearbox.net \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=brouer@redhat.com \
--cc=eyal.birger@gmail.com \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
--cc=lorenzo@kernel.org \
--cc=marek@cloudflare.com \
--cc=maze@google.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.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).