Re: converting iptables/ip6tables to efficient nftables rules

Re: converting iptables/ip6tables to efficient nftables rules

[Kerin Millar]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 15:30:14 -0500 (CDT)
Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu> wrote:

> 
> All-
> 
> I haven't been able to find anywhere in the nftables wiki that talks
> about "Dos and Don'ts" from an efficiency perspective, especially for
> people that may be coming from iptables/ip6tables to nftables.  If it's
> there and I've missed it, please point me at it.
> 
> I have a mix of 32 iptables and ip6tables rules on a RHEL 7 box that I
> want to convert to nftables for RHEL 9 (kernel 5.14.0 + Red Hat vendor
> sauce, nftables 1.0.4).
> 
> The obvious thing to do would be to just directly translate each rule to
> nftables, and have 32 nftables rules.
> 
> However, the iptables rules are all pairs of
> 
>  	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s X.Y.0.0/16 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
>  	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s X.Y.0.0/16 --dport 443 -j ACCEPT
> 
>  	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s A.B.C.D/32 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
>  	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s A.B.C.D/32 --dport 443 -j ACCEPT
> 
> So I could cut the number of ntables rules in half just by using
> 
>  	dport { 80, 443 }
> 
> in the translated rule.
> 
> The question is, *is it more efficient*, from a packet processing
> perspective, to do that?  My guess is that it is, but can anyone with
> expertise confirm?  If it is more efficient, what type of efficiency
> improvement are we talking about, roughly?

# nft -d netlink -c -f - <<<'table ip t { chain c { ip saddr 10.0.0.0/16 tcp dport { 80, 443 } accept; }; }'
ip (null) (null) use 0
__set%d t 3 size 2
__set%d t 0
	element 00005000  : 0 [end]	element 0000bb01  : 0 [end]
ip t c
  [ payload load 2b @ network header + 12 => reg 1 ]
  [ cmp eq reg 1 0x0000000a ]
  [ meta load l4proto => reg 1 ]
  [ cmp eq reg 1 0x00000006 ]
  [ payload load 2b @ transport header + 2 => reg 1 ]
  [ lookup reg 1 set __set%d ]
  [ immediate reg 0 accept ]

Unsurprisingly, repeating the rule can be shown to demonstrate twice the number of instructions. You may find it difficult to measure the difference, however.

> 
> Similarly, all of the rules list CIDR ranges or individual IPs, though
> there are a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 ranges.  I therefore could greatly reduce
> the number of rules by creating a couple of named sets, one for IPv4 and
> one for IPv6, and match the 'ip saddr' against the sets.

You are definitely on the right track. Maps and/or verdict maps incorporating concatenations of the form "ipv4_addr . inet_service" and "ipv6_addr . inet_service" might also prove useful, depending on your exact requirements.

-- 
Kerin Millar

Re: converting iptables/ip6tables to efficient nftables rules

[Tim Mooney]

In regard to: Re: converting iptables/ip6tables to efficient nftables...:

>> Similarly, all of the rules list CIDR ranges or individual IPs, though
>> there are a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 ranges.  I therefore could greatly reduce
>> the number of rules by creating a couple of named sets, one for IPv4 and
>> one for IPv6, and match the 'ip saddr' against the sets.
>
> You are definitely on the right track. Maps and/or verdict maps
> incorporating concatenations of the form "ipv4_addr . inet_service" and
> "ipv6_addr . inet_service" might also prove useful, depending on your
> exact requirements.
>

Thanks Kerin!

I really appreciate you taking the time to reply.  It was very helpful.

Cheers!

Tim
-- 
Tim Mooney                                             Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure /
Division of Information Technology    /                701-231-1076 (Voice)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164

Re: converting iptables/ip6tables to efficient nftables rules

[Florian Westphal]

Tim Mooney <Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu> wrote:
> I haven't been able to find anywhere in the nftables wiki that talks
> about "Dos and Don'ts" from an efficiency perspective, especially for
> people that may be coming from iptables/ip6tables to nftables.  If it's
> there and I've missed it, please point me at it.
> 
> I have a mix of 32 iptables and ip6tables rules on a RHEL 7 box that I
> want to convert to nftables for RHEL 9 (kernel 5.14.0 + Red Hat vendor
> sauce, nftables 1.0.4).
> 
> The obvious thing to do would be to just directly translate each rule to
> nftables, and have 32 nftables rules.
> 
> However, the iptables rules are all pairs of
> 
> 	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s X.Y.0.0/16 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
> 	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s X.Y.0.0/16 --dport 443 -j ACCEPT
> 
> 	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s A.B.C.D/32 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
> 	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s A.B.C.D/32 --dport 443 -j ACCEPT
> 
> So I could cut the number of ntables rules in half just by using
> 
> 	dport { 80, 443 }
> 
> in the translated rule.

For the record, nft -o suggest to merge into one rule:

nft -o -f example
Merging:
Y:3:3-68:               ip saddr 10.2.0.0/16 tcp dport 80 counter packets 0 bytes 0 accept
Y:4:3-69:               ip saddr 10.2.0.0/16 tcp dport 443 counter packets 0 bytes 0 accept
Y:5:3-68:               ip saddr 10.20.30.40 tcp dport 80 counter packets 0 bytes 0 accept
Y:6:3-69:               ip saddr 10.20.30.40 tcp dport 443 counter packets 0 bytes 0 accept
into:

ip saddr . tcp dport { 10.2.0.0/16 . 80, 10.2.0.0/16 . 443, 10.20.30.40 . 80, 10.20.30.40 . 443 } counter accept

depending on the number of elements you might want to use
a named set for this, so you can add/remove to it later.

Re: converting iptables/ip6tables to efficient nftables rules

[Tim Mooney]

In regard to: Re: converting iptables/ip6tables to efficient nftables...:

> For the record, nft -o suggest to merge into one rule:
>
> nft -o -f example
> Merging:
> Y:3:3-68:               ip saddr 10.2.0.0/16 tcp dport 80 counter packets 0 bytes 0 accept
> Y:4:3-69:               ip saddr 10.2.0.0/16 tcp dport 443 counter packets 0 bytes 0 accept
> Y:5:3-68:               ip saddr 10.20.30.40 tcp dport 80 counter packets 0 bytes 0 accept
> Y:6:3-69:               ip saddr 10.20.30.40 tcp dport 443 counter packets 0 bytes 0 accept
> into:
>
> ip saddr . tcp dport { 10.2.0.0/16 . 80, 10.2.0.0/16 . 443, 10.20.30.40 . 80, 10.20.30.40 . 443 } counter accept
>
> depending on the number of elements you might want to use
> a named set for this, so you can add/remove to it later.

Thanks Florian!

I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.

The version of nft I've mainly been working with (0.9.3 on RHEL 8) doesn't
document '-o' (--optimize), but I see the version on RHEL 9 does document it.

I'm probably going to proceed with the named set approach, mainly because
it will be easier for my coworkers to read.  The sysadmins I work with
are all very smart people, but many of them don't work with Linux as much
as I do.  Using named sets (one for IPv4, one for IPv6) is a little more
"obvious".

Thanks again,

Tim
-- 
Tim Mooney                                             Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure /
Division of Information Technology    /                701-231-1076 (Voice)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164

converting iptables/ip6tables to efficient nftables rules

[Tim Mooney]

All-

I haven't been able to find anywhere in the nftables wiki that talks
about "Dos and Don'ts" from an efficiency perspective, especially for
people that may be coming from iptables/ip6tables to nftables.  If it's
there and I've missed it, please point me at it.

I have a mix of 32 iptables and ip6tables rules on a RHEL 7 box that I
want to convert to nftables for RHEL 9 (kernel 5.14.0 + Red Hat vendor
sauce, nftables 1.0.4).

The obvious thing to do would be to just directly translate each rule to
nftables, and have 32 nftables rules.

However, the iptables rules are all pairs of

 	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s X.Y.0.0/16 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
 	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s X.Y.0.0/16 --dport 443 -j ACCEPT

 	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s A.B.C.D/32 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT
 	-A ports_allow -p tcp -m tcp -s A.B.C.D/32 --dport 443 -j ACCEPT

So I could cut the number of ntables rules in half just by using

 	dport { 80, 443 }

in the translated rule.

The question is, *is it more efficient*, from a packet processing
perspective, to do that?  My guess is that it is, but can anyone with
expertise confirm?  If it is more efficient, what type of efficiency
improvement are we talking about, roughly?

Similarly, all of the rules list CIDR ranges or individual IPs, though
there are a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 ranges.  I therefore could greatly reduce
the number of rules by creating a couple of named sets, one for IPv4 and
one for IPv6, and match the 'ip saddr' against the sets.

Again, the question is, *is that more efficient* for the kernel to process
than just having individual rules that each list a CIDR range or IP?  If
using the two sets are more efficient, roughly how much so?

I appreciate any information people can offer.  As my site converts more and
more of our systems to using nftables, I would like to feel confident that
we're writing updated rules that are at least as efficient (preferrably
more so) as our old iptables/ip6tables rules.

Thanks,

Tim
-- 
Tim Mooney                                             Tim.Mooney@ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure /
Division of Information Technology    /                701-231-1076 (Voice)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164