From: Stanislav Fomichev <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: John Fastabend <email@example.com> Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Stanislav Fomichev <email@example.com>, Networking <firstname.lastname@example.org>, bpf <email@example.com>, "David S. Miller" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <email@example.com>, Daniel Borkmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Petar Penkov <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf/flow_dissector: add mode to enforce global BPF flow dissector Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 10:58:48 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20191003175848.GE3223377@mini-arch> (raw) In-Reply-To: <5d9633a2de69c_55732aec43fe05c41@john-XPS-13-9370.notmuch> On 10/03, John Fastabend wrote: > Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:01 AM Stanislav Fomichev <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > On 10/02, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 6:43 PM Stanislav Fomichev <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 10/02, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 10:35 AM Stanislav Fomichev <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Always use init_net flow dissector BPF program if it's attached and fall > > > > > > > back to the per-net namespace one. Also, deny installing new programs if > > > > > > > there is already one attached to the root namespace. > > > > > > > Users can still detach their BPF programs, but can't attach any > > > > > > > new ones (-EPERM). > > > > > > > > I find this quite confusing for users, honestly. If there is no root > > > > namespace dissector we'll successfully attach per-net ones and they > > > > will be working fine. That some process will attach root one and all > > > > the previously successfully working ones will suddenly "break" without > > > > users potentially not realizing why. I bet this will be hair-pulling > > > > investigation for someone. Furthermore, if root net dissector is > > > > already attached, all subsequent attachment will now start failing. > > > The idea is that if sysadmin decides to use system-wide dissector it would > > > be attached from the init scripts/systemd early in the boot process. > > > So the users in your example would always get EPERM/EBUSY/EXIST. > > > I don't really see a realistic use-case where root and non-root > > > namespaces attach/detach flow dissector programs at non-boot > > > time (or why non-root containers could have BPF dissector and root > > > could have C dissector; multi-nic machine?). > > > > > > But I totally see your point about confusion. See below. > > > > > > > I'm not sure what's the better behavior here is, but maybe at least > > > > forcibly detach already attached ones, so when someone goes and tries > > > > to investigate, they will see that their BPF program is not attached > > > > anymore. Printing dmesg warning would be hugely useful here as well. > > > We can do for_each_net and detach non-root ones; that sounds > > > feasible and may avoid the confusion (at least when you query > > > non-root ns to see if the prog is still there, you get a valid > > > indication that it's not). > > > > > > > Alternatively, if there is any per-net dissector attached, we might > > > > disallow root net dissector to be installed. Sort of "too late to the > > > > party" way, but at least not surprising to successfully installed > > > > dissectors. > > > We can do this as well. > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > Let me try to implement both of your suggestions and see which one makes > > > more sense. I'm leaning towards the later (simple check to see if > > > any non-root ns has the prog attached). > > > > > > I'll follow up with a v2 if all goes well. > > > > Thanks! I don't have strong opinion on either, see what makes most > > sense from an actual user perspective. > > > From my point of view the second option is better. The root namespace flow > dissector attach should always happen first before any other namespaces are > created. If any namespaces have already attached then just fail the root > namespace. > > Otherwise if you detach existing dissectors from a container these were > probably attached by the init container which might not be running anymore > and I have no easy way to learn/find out about this without creating another > container specifically to watch for this. If I'm relying on the dissector > for something now I can seemingly random errors. So its a bit ugly and I'll > probably just tell users to always attach the root namespace first to avoid > this headache. On the other side if the root namespace already has a > flow dissector attached and my init container fails its attach cmd I > can handle the error gracefully or even fail to launch the container with > a nice error message and the administrator can figure something out. > I'm always in favor of hard errors vs trying to guess what the right > choice is for any particular setup. > > Also it seems to me just checking if anything is attached is going to make > the code simpler vs trying to detach things in all namespaces. Agreed, I was also leaning towards this option. Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-03 17:58 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-10-02 17:33 [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] " Stanislav Fomichev 2019-10-02 17:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] " Stanislav Fomichev 2019-10-02 20:57 ` Song Liu 2019-10-02 21:31 ` Stanislav Fomichev 2019-10-02 23:29 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2019-10-03 1:43 ` Stanislav Fomichev 2019-10-03 2:47 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2019-10-03 16:01 ` Stanislav Fomichev 2019-10-03 16:26 ` Andrii Nakryiko 2019-10-03 17:45 ` John Fastabend 2019-10-03 17:58 ` Stanislav Fomichev [this message] 2019-10-02 17:33 ` [PATCH bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add test for BPF flow dissector in the root namespace Stanislav Fomichev
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=20191003175848.GE3223377@mini-arch \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [PATCH bpf-next 1/2] bpf/flow_dissector: add mode to enforce global BPF flow dissector' \ /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
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).