From: Zvi Effron <zeffron@riotgames.com>
To: "Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>
Cc: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@cloudflare.com>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lbianconi@redhat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Redux: Backwards compatibility for XDP multi-buff
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:17:44 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAC1LvL3yQd_T5srJb78rGxv8YD-QND2aRgJ-p5vOQkbvrwJWSw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ilyt3i0y.fsf@toke.dk>
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:23 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Zvi Effron <zeffron@riotgames.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 9:06 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Lorenz (Cc. the other people who participated in today's discussion)
> >>
> >> Following our discussion at the LPC session today, I dug up my previous
> >> summary of the issue and some possible solutions[0]. Seems no on
> >> actually replied last time, which is why we went with the "do nothing"
> >> approach, I suppose. I'm including the full text of the original email
> >> below; please take a look, and let's see if we can converge on a
> >> consensus here.
> >>
> >> First off, a problem description: If an existing XDP program is exposed
> >> to an xdp_buff that is really a multi-buffer, while it will continue to
> >> run, it may end up with subtle and hard-to-debug bugs: If it's parsing
> >> the packet it'll only see part of the payload and not be aware of that
> >> fact, and if it's calculating the packet length, that will also only be
> >> wrong (only counting the first fragment).
> >>
> >> So what to do about this? First of all, to do anything about it, XDP
> >> programs need to be able to declare themselves "multi-buffer aware" (but
> >> see point 1 below). We could try to auto-detect it in the verifier by
> >> which helpers the program is using, but since existing programs could be
> >> perfectly happy to just keep running, it probably needs to be something
> >> the program communicates explicitly. One option is to use the
> >> expected_attach_type to encode this; programs can then declare it in the
> >> source by section name, or the userspace loader can set the type for
> >> existing programs if needed.
> >>
> >> With this, the kernel will know if a given XDP program is multi-buff
> >> aware and can decide what to do with that information. For this we came
> >> up with basically three options:
> >>
> >> 1. Do nothing. This would make it up to users / sysadmins to avoid
> >> anything breaking by manually making sure to not enable multi-buffer
> >> support while loading any XDP programs that will malfunction if
> >> presented with an mb frame. This will probably break in interesting
> >> ways, but it's nice and simple from an implementation PoV. With this
> >> we don't need the declaration discussed above either.
> >>
> >> 2. Add a check at runtime and drop the frames if they are mb-enabled and
> >> the program doesn't understand it. This is relatively simple to
> >> implement, but it also makes for difficult-to-understand issues (why
> >> are my packets suddenly being dropped?), and it will incur runtime
> >> overhead.
> >>
> >> 3. Reject loading of programs that are not MB-aware when running in an
> >> MB-enabled mode. This would make things break in more obvious ways,
> >> and still allow a userspace loader to declare a program "MB-aware" to
> >> force it to run if necessary. The problem then becomes at what level
> >> to block this?
> >>
> >
> > I think there's another potential problem with this as well: what happens to
> > already loaded programs that are not MB-aware? Are they forcibly unloaded?
>
> I'd say probably the opposite: You can't toggle whatever switch we end
> up with if there are any non-MB-aware programs (you'd have to unload
> them first)...
>
How would we communicate that issue? dmesg? I'm not very familiar with how
sysctl change failure causes are communicated to users, so this might be a
solved problem, but if I run `sysctl -w net.xdp.multibuffer 1` (or whatever
ends up actually being the toggle) to active multi-buffer, and it fails because
there's a loaded non-aware program, that seems like a potential for a lot of
administrator pain.
> >> Doing this at the driver level is not enough: while a particular
> >> driver knows if it's running in multi-buff mode, we can't know for
> >> sure if a particular XDP program is multi-buff aware at attach time:
> >> it could be tail-calling other programs, or redirecting packets to
> >> another interface where it will be processed by a non-MB aware
> >> program.
> >>
> >> So another option is to make it a global toggle: e.g., create a new
> >> sysctl to enable multi-buffer. If this is set, reject loading any XDP
> >> program that doesn't support multi-buffer mode, and if it's unset,
> >> disable multi-buffer mode in all drivers. This will make it explicit
> >> when the multi-buffer mode is used, and prevent any accidental subtle
> >> malfunction of existing XDP programs. The drawback is that it's a
> >> mode switch, so more configuration complexity.
> >>
> >
> > Could we combine the last two bits here into a global toggle that doesn't
> > require a sysctl? If any driver is put into multi-buffer mode, then the system
> > switches to requiring all programs be multi-buffer? When the last multi-buffer
> > enabled driver switches out of multi-buffer, remove the system-wide
> > restriction?
>
> Well, the trouble here is that we don't necessarily have an explicit
> "multi-buf mode" for devices. For instance, you could raise the MTU of a
> device without it necessarily involving any XDP multi-buffer stuff (if
> you're not running XDP on that device). So if we did turn "raising the
> MTU" into such a mode switch, we would end up blocking any MTU changes
> if any XDP programs are loaded. Or having an MTU change cause a
> force-unload of all XDP programs.
Maybe I missed something then, but you had stated that "while a particular
driver knows if it's running in multi-buff mode" so I assumed that the driver
would be able to tell when to toggle the mode on.
I had been thinking that when a driver turned multi-buffer off, it could
trigger a check of all drivers, but that also seems like it could just be a
global refcount of all the drivers that have requested multi-buffer mode. When
a driver enables multi-buffer for itself, it increments the refcount, and when
it disables, it decrements. A non-zero count means the system is in
multi-buffer mode.
Obviously this is more complex than just requiring the administrator to enable
the system-wide mode.
>
> Neither of those are desirable outcomes, I think; and if we add a
> separate "XDP multi-buff" switch, we might as well make it system-wide?
>
> > Regarding my above question, if non-MB-aware XDP programs are not forcibly
> > unloaded, then a global toggle is also insufficient. An existing non-MB-aware
> > XDP program would still beed to be rejected at attach time by the
> > driver.
>
> See above.
>
> -Toke
>
--Zvi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-21 19:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-21 16:06 Redux: Backwards compatibility for XDP multi-buff Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-21 17:31 ` Zvi Effron
2021-09-21 18:22 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-21 19:17 ` Zvi Effron [this message]
2021-09-21 22:14 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-21 23:10 ` Zvi Effron
2021-09-22 20:13 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-21 20:12 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2021-09-21 22:20 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-21 22:51 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-09-22 20:01 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-22 21:23 ` Zvi Effron
2021-09-23 18:45 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-23 13:46 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-09-27 12:43 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2021-09-21 22:54 ` Jakub Kicinski
2021-09-22 20:02 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-22 21:11 ` Zvi Effron
2021-09-23 19:00 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-23 10:33 ` Lorenz Bauer
2021-09-23 12:59 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-24 10:18 ` Lorenz Bauer
2021-09-24 17:55 ` Zvi Effron
2021-09-24 19:38 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-09-28 8:47 ` Lorenz Bauer
2021-09-28 13:43 ` Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
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=CAC1LvL3yQd_T5srJb78rGxv8YD-QND2aRgJ-p5vOQkbvrwJWSw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=zeffron@riotgames.com \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=john.fastabend@gmail.com \
--cc=lbianconi@redhat.com \
--cc=lmb@cloudflare.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=toke@redhat.com \
/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).