Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] kproxy: Kernel Proxy
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: 2017-06-29 20:58:18
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 01:40:26PM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
quoted
In fact that's not much what I observe in field. In practice, large data streams are cheaply relayed using splice(), I could achieve 60 Gbps of HTTP forwarding via HAProxy on a 4-core xeon 2 years ago. And when you use SSL, the cost of the copy to/from kernel is small compared to all the crypto operations surrounding this.Right, getting rid of the extra crypto operations and so called "SSL inspection" is the ultimate goal this is going towards.
Yep but in order to take decisions at L7 you need to decapsulate SSL.
HTTP is only one use case. The are other interesting use cases such as those in container security where the application protocol might be something like simple RPC.
OK that indeed makes sense in such environments.
Performance is relevant because we potentially want security applied to every message in every communication in a containerized data center. Putting the userspace hop in the datapath of every packet is know to be problematic, not just for the performance hit also because it increases the attack surface on users' privacy.
While I totally agree on the performance hit when inspecting each packet, I fail to see the relation with users' privacy. In fact under some circumstances it can even be the opposite. For example, using something like kTLS for a TCP/HTTP proxy can result in cleartext being observable in strace while it's not visible when TLS is terminated in userland because all you see are openssl's read()/write() operations. Maybe you have specific attacks in mind ?
quoted
Regarding kernel-side protocol parsing, there's an unfortunate trend at moving more and more protocols to userland due to these protocols evolving very quickly. At least you'll want to find a way to provide these parsers from userspace, which will inevitably come with its set of problems or limitations :-/That's why everything is going BPF now ;-)
Yes, I knew you were going to suggest this :-) I'm still prudent on it to be honnest. I don't think it would be that easy to implement an HPACK encoder/decoder using BPF. And even regarding just plain HTTP parsing, certain very small operations in haproxy's parser can quickly result in a 10% performance degradation when improperly optimized (ie: changing a "likely", altering branch prediction, or cache walk patterns when using arrays to evaluate character classes faster). But for general usage I indeed think it should be OK.
quoted
All this to say that while I can definitely imagine the benefits of having in-kernel sockets for in-kernel L7 processing or filtering, I'm having strong doubts about the benefits that userland may receive by using this (or maybe you already have any performance numbers supporting this ?).Nope, no numbers yet.
OK, no worries. Thanks for your explanations! Willy