Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] bpf: add PHYS_DEV prog type for early driver filter

[Brenden Blanco <bblanco@plumgrid.com>]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 05:12:27PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:09:57 -0300
> Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net> wrote:
> > > On 04/04/2016 03:07 PM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:  
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 10:49:09 +0200 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
> > >> wrote:  
> > >>>
> > >>> On 04/02/2016 03:21 AM, Brenden Blanco wrote:  
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Add a new bpf prog type that is intended to run in early stages of the
> > >>>> packet rx path. Only minimal packet metadata will be available, hence a
> > >>>> new
> > >>>> context type, struct xdp_metadata, is exposed to userspace. So far only
> > >>>> expose the readable packet length, and only in read mode.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The PHYS_DEV name is chosen to represent that the program is meant only
> > >>>> for physical adapters, rather than all netdevs.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> While the user visible struct is new, the underlying context must be
> > >>>> implemented as a minimal skb in order for the packet load_* instructions
> > >>>> to work. The skb filled in by the driver must have skb->len, skb->head,
> > >>>> and skb->data set, and skb->data_len == 0.
> > >>>>  
> > >> [...]  
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you plan to support bpf_skb_load_bytes() as well? I like using
> > >>> this API especially when dealing with larger chunks (>4 bytes) to
> > >>> load into stack memory, plus content is kept in network byte order.
> > >>>
> > >>> What about other helpers such as bpf_skb_store_bytes() et al that
> > >>> work on skbs. Do you intent to reuse them as is and thus populate
> > >>> the per cpu skb with needed fields (faking linear data), or do you
> > >>> see larger obstacles that prevent for this?  
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Argh... maybe the minimal pseudo/fake SKB is the wrong "signal" to send
> > >> to users of this API.
> > >>
> > >> The hole idea is that an SKB is NOT allocated yet, and not needed at
> > >> this level.  If we start supporting calling underlying SKB functions,
> > >> then we will end-up in the same place (performance wise).  
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm talking about the current skb-related BPF helper functions we have,
> > > so the question is how much from that code we have we can reuse under
> > > these constraints (obviously things like the tunnel helpers are a different
> > > story) and if that trade-off is acceptable for us. I'm also thinking
> > > that, for example, if you need to parse the packet data anyway for a drop
> > > verdict, you might as well pass some meta data (that is set in the real
> > > skb later on) for those packets that go up the stack.  
> > 
> > Right, the meta data in this case is an abstracted receive descriptor.
> > This would include items that we get in a device receive descriptor
> > (computed checksum, hash, VLAN tag). This is purposely a small
> > restricted data structure. I'm hoping we can minimize the size of this
> > to not much more than 32 bytes (including pointers to data and
> > linkage).
> 
> I agree.
>  
> > How this translates to skb to maintain compatibility is with BPF
> > interesting question. One other consideration is that skb's are kernel
> > specific, we should be able to use the same BPF filter program in
> > userspace over DPDK for instance-- so an skb interface as the packet
> > abstraction might not be the right model...
> 
> I agree.  I don't think reusing the SKB data structure is the right
> model.  We should drop the SKB pointer from the API.
> 
> As Tom also points out, making the BPF interface independent of the SKB
> meta-data structure, would also make the eBPF program more generally
> applicable.
The initial approach that I tried went down this path. Alexei advised
that I use the pseudo skb, and in the future the API between drivers and
bpf can change to adopt non-skb context. The only user facing ABIs in
this patchset are the IFLA, the xdp_metadata struct, and the name of the
new enum.

The reason to use a pseudo skb for now is that there will be a fair
amount of churn to get bpf jit and interpreter to understand non-skb
context in the bpf_load_pointer() code. I don't see the need for
requiring that for this patchset, as it will be internal-only change
if/when we use something else.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
>   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
>   Author of http://www.iptv-analyzer.org
>   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer