Re: [PATCH bpf 1/2] flow_dissector: support FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ETH_ADDRS with BPF

[Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@fomichev.me>]

On 05/13, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:53 PM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > If we have a flow dissector BPF program attached to the namespace,
> > FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ETH_ADDRS won't trigger because we exit early.
> 
> I suppose that this is true for a variety of keys? For instance, also
> FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_IPV4_ADDRS.
I though the intent was to support most of the basic stuff (eth/ip/tcp/udp)
without any esoteric protocols. Not sure about FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_IPV4_ADDRS,
looks like we support that (except FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_TIPC part).

> We originally intended BPF flow dissection for all paths except
> tc_flower. As that catches all the vulnerable cases on the ingress
> path on the one hand and it is infeasible to support all the
> flower features, now and future. I think that is the real fix.
Sorry, didn't get what you meant by the real fix.
Don't care about tc_flower? Just support a minimal set of features
needed by selftests?

> >
> > Handle FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ETH_ADDRS before BPF and only if we have
> > an skb (used by tc-flower only).
> >
> > Fixes: d58e468b1112 ("flow_dissector: implements flow dissector BPF hook")
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@google.com>
> > ---
> >  net/core/flow_dissector.c | 23 ++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/flow_dissector.c b/net/core/flow_dissector.c
> > index 9ca784c592ac..ba76d9168c8b 100644
> > --- a/net/core/flow_dissector.c
> > +++ b/net/core/flow_dissector.c
> > @@ -825,6 +825,18 @@ bool __skb_flow_dissect(const struct net *net,
> >                         else if (skb->sk)
> >                                 net = sock_net(skb->sk);
> >                 }
> > +
> > +               if (dissector_uses_key(flow_dissector,
> > +                                      FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ETH_ADDRS)) {
> > +                       struct ethhdr *eth = eth_hdr(skb);
> 
> Here as well as in the original patch: is it safe to just cast to
> eth_hdr? In the same file, __skb_flow_dissect_gre does test for
> (encapsulated) protocol first.
Good question, I guess the assumption here is that
FLOW_DISSECTOR_KEY_ETH_ADDRS is only used by tc_flower and the appropriate
checks should be there as well.
It's probably better to check skb->proto here though.