From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
To: Matt Cover <werekraken@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
davem@davemloft.net, ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net,
kafai@fb.com, songliubraving@fb.com, yhs@fb.com,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>,
Matthew Cover <matthew.cover@stackpath.com>,
mail@timurcelik.de, pabeni@redhat.com,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>,
wangli39@baidu.com, lifei.shirley@bytedance.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:08:35 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9998f40c-995a-899d-a861-c7788ba6d5dc@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGyo_hrM8TzTp6L77x-_18XZn+NEcDyZXAxnwgNaCgMBLpCMPg@mail.gmail.com>
On 2019/9/23 上午11:00, Matt Cover wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 7:32 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/9/23 上午9:20, Matt Cover wrote:
>>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:46 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2019/9/23 上午1:43, Matt Cover wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Matthew Cover wrote:
>>>>>>> Treat a negative return from a TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF bpf prog as a signal
>>>>>>> to fallback to tun_automq_select_queue() for tx queue selection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Compilation of this exact patch was tested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For functional testing 3 additional printk()s were added.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Functional testing results (on 2 txq tap device):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] ========== tun no prog ==========
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_ebpf_select_queue() returned '-1'
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_automq_select_queue() ran
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] ========== tun prog -1 ==========
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: bpf_prog_run_clear_cb() returned '-1'
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_ebpf_select_queue() returned '-1'
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_automq_select_queue() ran
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] ========== tun prog 0 ==========
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: bpf_prog_run_clear_cb() returned '0'
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_ebpf_select_queue() returned '0'
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] ========== tun prog 1 ==========
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: bpf_prog_run_clear_cb() returned '1'
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_ebpf_select_queue() returned '1'
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] ========== tun prog 2 ==========
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: bpf_prog_run_clear_cb() returned '2'
>>>>>>> [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_ebpf_select_queue() returned '0'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Cover <matthew.cover@stackpath.com>
>>>>>> Could you add a bit more motivation data here?
>>>>> Thank you for these questions Michael.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll plan on adding the below information to the
>>>>> commit message and submitting a v2 of this patch
>>>>> when net-next reopens. In the meantime, it would
>>>>> be very helpful to know if these answers address
>>>>> some of your concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. why is this a good idea
>>>>> This change allows TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF progs to
>>>>> do any of the following.
>>>>> 1. implement queue selection for a subset of
>>>>> traffic (e.g. special queue selection logic
>>>>> for ipv4, but return negative and use the
>>>>> default automq logic for ipv6)
>>>> Well, using ebpf means it need to take care of all the cases. E.g you
>>>> can easily implement the fallback through eBPF as well.
>>>>
>>> I really think there is value in being
>>> able to implement a scoped special
>>> case while leaving the rest of the
>>> packets in the kernel's hands.
>>
>> This is only work when some fucntion could not be done by eBPF itself
>> and then we can provide the function through eBPF helpers. But this is
>> not the case here.
>>
>>
>>> Having to reimplement automq makes
>>> this hookpoint less accessible to
>>> beginners and experienced alike.
>>
>> Note that automq itself is kind of complicated, it's best effort that is
>> hard to be documented accurately. It has several limitations (e.g flow
>> caches etc.) that may not work well in some conditions.
>>
>> It's not hard to implement a user programmable steering policy through
>> maps which could have much deterministic behavior than automq. The goal
>> of steering ebpf is to get rid of automq completely not partially rely
>> on it.
>>
>> And I don't see how relying on automq can simplify anything.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
> I'm not suggesting that we document automq.
>
> I'm suggesting that we add a return value
> which is documented as signaling to the
> kernel to implement whatever queue
> selection method is used when there is no
> ebpf prog attached.
Again, this only work when there's something that could not be done
through eBPF. And then we can provide eBPF helper there.
> That behavior today is
> automq.
Automq is not good, e.g tun_ebpf_select_queue() has already provided a
fallback, anything that automq can do better than that?
>
> There is nothing about this return value
> which would harder to change the default
> queue selection later. The default already
> exists today when there is no program
> loaded.
The patch depends on incorrect behavior of tuntap (updating flow caches
when steering prog is set). I think it's wrong to update flow caches
even when steering program is set which leads extra overhead. Will
probably submit a patch to disable that behavior.
Thanks
>
>>>>> 2. determine there isn't sufficient information
>>>>> to do proper queue selection; return
>>>>> negative and use the default automq logic
>>>>> for the unknown
>>>> Same as above.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 3. implement a noop prog (e.g. do
>>>>> bpf_trace_printk() then return negative and
>>>>> use the default automq logic for everything)
>>>> ditto.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 2. how do we know existing userspace does not rely on existing behaviour
>>>>> Prior to this change a negative return from a
>>>>> TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog would have been cast
>>>>> into a u16 and traversed netdev_cap_txqueue().
>>>>>
>>>>> In most cases netdev_cap_txqueue() would have
>>>>> found this value to exceed real_num_tx_queues
>>>>> and queue_index would be updated to 0.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible that a TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog
>>>>> return a negative value which when cast into a
>>>>> u16 results in a positive queue_index less than
>>>>> real_num_tx_queues. For example, on x86_64, a
>>>>> return value of -65535 results in a queue_index
>>>>> of 1; which is a valid queue for any multiqueue
>>>>> device.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems unlikely, however as stated above is
>>>>> unfortunately possible, that existing
>>>>> TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF programs would choose to
>>>>> return a negative value rather than return the
>>>>> positive value which holds the same meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems more likely that future
>>>>> TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF programs would leverage a
>>>>> negative return and potentially be loaded into
>>>>> a kernel with the old behavior.
>>>> Yes, eBPF can return probably wrong value, but what kernel did is just
>>>> to make sure it doesn't harm anything.
>>>>
>>>> I would rather just drop the packet in this case.
>>>>
>>> In addition to TUN_SSE_ABORT, we can
>>> add TUN_SSE_DROP. That could be made the
>>> default for any undefined negative
>>> return as well.
>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 3. why doesn't userspace need a way to figure out whether it runs on a kernel with and
>>>>>> without this patch
>>>>> There may be some value in exposing this fact
>>>>> to the ebpf prog loader. What is the standard
>>>>> practice here, a define?
>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>> MST
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> drivers/net/tun.c | 20 +++++++++++---------
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
>>>>>>> index aab0be4..173d159 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
>>>>>>> @@ -583,35 +583,37 @@ static u16 tun_automq_select_queue(struct tun_struct *tun, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>>>> return txq;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -static u16 tun_ebpf_select_queue(struct tun_struct *tun, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>>>> +static int tun_ebpf_select_queue(struct tun_struct *tun, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> struct tun_prog *prog;
>>>>>>> u32 numqueues;
>>>>>>> - u16 ret = 0;
>>>>>>> + int ret = -1;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> numqueues = READ_ONCE(tun->numqueues);
>>>>>>> if (!numqueues)
>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> + rcu_read_lock();
>>>>>>> prog = rcu_dereference(tun->steering_prog);
>>>>>>> if (prog)
>>>>>>> ret = bpf_prog_run_clear_cb(prog->prog, skb);
>>>>>>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - return ret % numqueues;
>>>>>>> + if (ret >= 0)
>>>>>>> + ret %= numqueues;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> static u16 tun_select_queue(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
>>>>>>> struct net_device *sb_dev)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> struct tun_struct *tun = netdev_priv(dev);
>>>>>>> - u16 ret;
>>>>>>> + int ret;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - rcu_read_lock();
>>>>>>> - if (rcu_dereference(tun->steering_prog))
>>>>>>> - ret = tun_ebpf_select_queue(tun, skb);
>>>>>>> - else
>>>>>>> + ret = tun_ebpf_select_queue(tun, skb);
>>>>>>> + if (ret < 0)
>>>>>>> ret = tun_automq_select_queue(tun, skb);
>>>>>>> - rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> 1.8.3.1
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-23 5:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-20 18:58 [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return Matthew Cover
2019-09-20 19:45 ` Matt Cover
2019-09-22 12:37 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-09-22 17:43 ` Matt Cover
2019-09-22 20:35 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-09-22 22:30 ` Matt Cover
2019-09-22 22:46 ` Matt Cover
2019-09-23 0:28 ` Matt Cover
2019-09-25 10:33 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-09-23 0:51 ` Jason Wang
2019-09-23 1:15 ` Matt Cover
2019-09-23 2:34 ` Jason Wang
2019-09-23 3:18 ` Matt Cover
2019-09-23 5:15 ` Jason Wang
2019-09-23 16:31 ` Matt Cover
2019-09-25 4:08 ` Jason Wang
2019-09-23 0:46 ` Jason Wang
2019-09-23 1:20 ` Matt Cover
2019-09-23 2:32 ` Jason Wang
2019-09-23 3:00 ` Matt Cover
2019-09-23 5:08 ` Jason Wang [this message]
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=9998f40c-995a-899d-a861-c7788ba6d5dc@redhat.com \
--to=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=lifei.shirley@bytedance.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mail@timurcelik.de \
--cc=matthew.cover@stackpath.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
--cc=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=sdf@google.com \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=wangli39@baidu.com \
--cc=werekraken@gmail.com \
--cc=yhs@fb.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).