Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] net: ipv4, ipv6: run cgroup ebpf egress programs

Daniel Borkmann
2016-09-26T10:10:53Z

On 09/23/2016 03:17 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 05:12:57PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
>> On 09/22/2016 02:05 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> [...]
>>> Have a look at net/ipv4/netfilter/nft_chain_route_ipv4.c for instance.
>>> In your case, you have to add a new chain type:
>>>
>>> static const struct nf_chain_type nft_chain_bpf = {
>>> .name = "bpf",
>>> .type = NFT_CHAIN_T_bpf,
>>> ...
>>> .hooks = {
>>> [NF_INET_LOCAL_IN] = nft_do_bpf,
>>> [NF_INET_LOCAL_OUT] = nft_do_bpf,
>>> [NF_INET_FORWARD] = nft_do_bpf,
>>> [NF_INET_PRE_ROUTING] = nft_do_bpf,
>>> [NF_INET_POST_ROUTING] = nft_do_bpf,
>>> },
>>> };
>>>
>>> nft_do_bpf() is the raw netfilter hook that you register, this hook
>>> will just execute to iterate over the list of bpf filters and run
>>> them.
>>>
>>> This new chain is created on demand, so no overhead if not needed, eg.
>>>
>>> nft add table bpf
>>> nft add chain bpf input { type bpf hook output priority 0\; }
>>>
>>> Then, you add a rule for each bpf program you want to run, just like
>>> tc+bpf.
>>
>> But from a high-level point of view, this sounds like a huge hack to me,
>> in the sense that nft as a bytecode engine (from whole architecture I
>> mean) calls into another bytecode engine such as bpf as an extension.
>
> nft is not only bytecode engine, it provides a netlink socket
> interface to register hooks (from user perspective, these are called
> basechain). It is providing the infrastructure that you're lacking
> indeed and addressing the concerns I mentioned about the visibility of
> the global policy that you want to apply on the packet path.
>
> As I explained you can potentially add any basechain type with
> specific semantics. Proposed semantics for this bpf chain would be:
>
> 1) You can use any of the existing netfilter hooks.
> 2) You can only run bpf program from there. No chance for the user
> can mix nftables with bpf VM.
>
>> And bpf code from there isn't using any of the features from nft
>> besides being invoked from the hook
>
> I think there's a misunderstading here.
>
> You will not run nft_do_chain(), you don't waste cycles to run what is
> specific to nftables. You will just run nft_do_bpf() which will just
> do what you want to run for each packet. Thus, you have control on
> what nft_do_bpf() does and decide on what that function spend cycles
> on.
>
>> [...] I was hoping that nft would try to avoid some of those exotic
>> modules we have from xt, I would consider xt_bpf (no offense ;))
>
> This has nothing to do with it. In xt_bpf you waste cycles running
> code that is specific to iptables, what I propose would not, just the
> generic hook code and then your code.
>
> [...]
>>> Benefits are, rewording previous email:
>>>
>>> * You get access to all of the existing netfilter hooks in one go
>>> to run bpf programs. No need for specific redundant hooks. This
>>> provides raw access to the netfilter hook, you define the little
>>> code that your hook runs before you bpf run invocation. So there
>>> is *no need to bloat the stack with more hooks, we use what we
>>> have.*
>>
>> But also this doesn't really address the fundamental underlying problem
>> that is discussed here. nft doesn't even have cgroups v2 support.
>
> You don't need native cgroups v2 support in nft, you just run bpf
> programs from the native bpf basechain type. So whatever bpf supports,
> you can do it.

Yes, and I'm saying that the existing netfilter hooks alone still
don't address the underlying issue as mentioned before. From ingress
side you still need some form of a hook where you get the final sk
(non early-demuxed ones I mean), nothing changed on that issue as far
as I can see.

> Instead, if you take this approach, you will get access to all of the
> existing hooks to run bpf programs, this includes arp, bridge and
> potentially run filters for both ip and ip6 through our inet family.
>
> [...]
>> Or would the idea be that the current netfilter hooks would be redone in
>> a way that they are generic enough so that any other user could make use
>> of it independent of netfilter?
>
> Redone? Why? What do you need, a rename?
>
> Dependencies are very few: CONFIG_NETFILTER for the hooks,
> CONFIG_NF_TABLES to obtain the netlink interface to load the bpf
> programs and CONFIG_NF_TABLES_BPF to define the bpf basechain type
> semantics to run bpf programs from there. It's actually very little
> boilerplate code.

Still not really keen on this idea. You still need an additional,
non-symmetric hook for sk input, we add a dependency that forces
CONFIG_NETFILTER and CONFIG_NF_TABLES where it doesn't really need
it besides the hook point itself, and while boilerplate code for
integrating/adding the BPF basechain may be okay'ish from kernel
side in size, you still need the whole front-end infrastructure
with ELF loader etc we've added over time into tc. So what you would
end up with is the same duplicated infrastructure side you have
with tc + BPF already.

Therefore my question was in the direction of making the hook
generic in a way, where we could just add a new parent id to
sch_clsact for clsact_find_tcf(), and then from all the available
generic hooks, the two needed here can be addressed from sch_clsact
as well without the detour via adding entire infrastructure around
nft, since this is already available from tc by just going via
tc_classify() like we do in functions such as sch_handle_ingress()
and sch_handle_egress(). This still gives you the visibility and
infrastructure you are asking for, and avoids to duplicate the same
functionality from tc over into nft. It would also help interactions
with the already existing 'tc filter add ... {ingress,egress} bpf ..'
parents, since from a BPF programmability perspective, it would
reuse the same existing loader code and thus eases maps sharing,
and allow for program code to be reused in the same object file.

> Other than that, I can predict where you're going: You will end up
> adding a hook just before/after every of the existing netfilter hooks,
> and that is really nonsense to me.

I don't think that is needed here.

Thanks,
Daniel