Re: BPF redirect API design issue for BPF-prog MTU feedback?
From: Lorenz Bauer <hidden>
Date: 2020-09-21 10:37:32
Also in:
bpf
On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 at 00:06, Maciej Żenczykowski [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
This is a good point. As bpf_skb_adjust_room() can just be run after bpf_redirect() call, then a MTU check in bpf_redirect() actually doesn't make much sense. As clever/bad BPF program can then avoid the MTU check anyhow. This basically means that we have to do the MTU check (again) on kernel side anyhow to catch such clever/bad BPF programs. (And I don't like wasting cycles on doing the same check two times).If you get rid of the check in bpf_redirect() you might as well get rid of *all* the checks for excessive mtu in all the helpers that adjust packet size one way or another way. They *all* then become useless overhead. I don't like that. There may be something the bpf program could do to react to the error condition (for example in my case, not modify things and just let the core stack deal with things - which will probably just generate packet too big icmp error). btw. right now our forwarding programs first adjust the packet size then call bpf_redirect() and almost immediately return what it returned. but this could I think easily be changed to reverse the ordering, so we wouldn't increase packet size before the core stack was informed we would be forwarding via a different interface.
We do the same, except that we also use XDP_TX when appropriate. This complicates the matter, because there is no helper call we could return an error from. My preference would be to have three helpers: get MTU for a device, redirect ctx to a device (with MTU check), resize ctx (without MTU check) but that doesn't work with XDP_TX. Your idea of doing checks in redirect and adjust_room is pragmatic and seems easier to implement. -- Lorenz Bauer | Systems Engineer 6th Floor, County Hall/The Riverside Building, SE1 7PB, UK www.cloudflare.com