Re: [RFC PATCH bpf-next 0/8] Socket migration for SO_REUSEPORT.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 07:17:49AM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:

From:   Martin KaFai Lau <redacted>
Date:   Wed, 18 Nov 2020 17:49:13 -0800

quoted

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 06:40:15PM +0900, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:

quoted

The SO_REUSEPORT option allows sockets to listen on the same port and to
accept connections evenly. However, there is a defect in the current
implementation. When a SYN packet is received, the connection is tied to a
listening socket. Accordingly, when the listener is closed, in-flight
requests during the three-way handshake and child sockets in the accept
queue are dropped even if other listeners could accept such connections.

This situation can happen when various server management tools restart
server (such as nginx) processes. For instance, when we change nginx
configurations and restart it, it spins up new workers that respect the new
configuration and closes all listeners on the old workers, resulting in
in-flight ACK of 3WHS is responded by RST.

As a workaround for this issue, we can do connection draining by eBPF:

  1. Before closing a listener, stop routing SYN packets to it.
  2. Wait enough time for requests to complete 3WHS.
  3. Accept connections until EAGAIN, then close the listener.

Although this approach seems to work well, EAGAIN has nothing to do with
how many requests are still during 3WHS. Thus, we have to know the number

It sounds like the application can already drain the established socket
by accept()?  To solve the problem that you have,
does it mean migrating req_sk (the in-progress 3WHS) is enough?

Ideally, the application needs to drain only the accepted sockets because
3WHS and tying a connection to a listener are just kernel behaviour. Also,
there are some cases where we want to apply new configurations as soon as
possible such as replacing TLS certificates.

It is possible to drain the established sockets by accept(), but the
sockets in the accept queue have not started application sessions yet. So,
if we do not drain such sockets (or if the kernel happened to select
another listener), we can (could) apply the new settings much earlier.

Moreover, the established sockets may start long-standing connections so
that we cannot complete draining for a long time and may have to
force-close them (and they would have longer lifetime if they are migrated
to a new listener).

quoted

Applications can already use the bpf prog to do (1) and divert
the SYN to the newly started process.

If the application cares about service disruption,
it usually needs to drain the fd(s) that it already has and
finishes serving the pending request (e.g. https) on them anyway.
The time taking to finish those could already be longer than it takes
to drain the accept queue or finish off the 3WHS in reasonable time.
or the application that you have does not need to drain the fd(s) 
it already has and it can close them immediately?

In the point of view of service disruption, I agree with you.

However, I think that there are some situations where we want to apply new
configurations rather than to drain sockets with old configurations and
that if the kernel migrates sockets automatically, we can simplify user
programs.

This configuration-update(/new-TLS-cert...etc) consideration will be useful
if it is also included in the cover letter.

It sounds like the service that you have is draining the existing
already-accepted fd(s) which are using the old configuration.
Those existing fd(s) could also be long life.  Potentially those
existing fd(s) will be in a much higher number than the
to-be-accepted fd(s)?

or you meant in some cases it wants to migrate to the new configuration
ASAP (e.g. for security reason) even it has to close all the
already-accepted fds() which are using the old configuration??

In either cases, considering the already-accepted fd(s)
is usually in a much more number, does the to-be-accepted
connection make any difference percentage-wise?