Re: [Patch bpf-next v3 4/5] skmsg: use skb ext instead of TCP_SKB_CB

On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:20 AM John Fastabend
[off-list ref] wrote:

Cong Wang wrote:

quoted

From: Cong Wang <redacted>

Currently TCP_SKB_CB() is hard-coded in skmsg code, it certainly
does not work for any other non-TCP protocols. We can move them to
skb ext instead of playing with skb cb, which is harder to make
correct.

Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com>
Reviewed-by: Lorenz Bauer <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <redacted>
---

I'm not seeing the advantage of doing this at the moment. We can
continue to use cb[] here, which is simpler IMO and use the ext
if needed for the other use cases. This is adding a per packet
alloc cost that we don't have at the moment as I understand it.

Hmm? How can we continue using TCP_SKB_CB() for UDP or
AF_UNIX?

I am not sure I get your "at the moment" correctly, do you mean
I should move this patch to a later patchset, maybe the UDP
patchset? At least this patch is needed, no matter by which patchset,
so it should not be dropped.

[...]

quoted

diff --git a/include/linux/skmsg.h b/include/linux/skmsg.h
index e3bb712af257..d5c711ef6d4b 100644
--- a/include/linux/skmsg.h
+++ b/include/linux/skmsg.h

@@ -459,4 +459,44 @@ static inline bool sk_psock_strp_enabled(struct sk_psock *psock)
              return false;
      return !!psock->saved_data_ready;
 }
+
+struct skb_bpf_ext {
+     __u32 flags;
+     struct sock *sk_redir;
+};
+
+#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NET_SOCK_MSG)
+static inline
+bool skb_bpf_ext_ingress(const struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+     struct skb_bpf_ext *ext = skb_ext_find(skb, SKB_EXT_BPF);
+
+     return ext->flags & BPF_F_INGRESS;
+}
+
+static inline
+void skb_bpf_ext_set_ingress(const struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+     struct skb_bpf_ext *ext = skb_ext_find(skb, SKB_EXT_BPF);
+
+     ext->flags |= BPF_F_INGRESS;
+}
+
+static inline
+struct sock *skb_bpf_ext_redirect_fetch(struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+     struct skb_bpf_ext *ext = skb_ext_find(skb, SKB_EXT_BPF);
+
+     return ext->sk_redir;
+}
+
+static inline
+void skb_bpf_ext_redirect_clear(struct sk_buff *skb)
+{
+     struct skb_bpf_ext *ext = skb_ext_find(skb, SKB_EXT_BPF);
+
+     ext->flags = 0;
+     ext->sk_redir = NULL;
+}
+#endif /* CONFIG_NET_SOCK_MSG */

So we will have some slight duplication for cb[] variant and ext
variant above. I'm OK with that to avoid an allocation.

Not sure what you mean by "duplication", these are removed from
TCP_SKB_CB(), so there is clearly no duplication.

[...]

quoted

@@ -1003,11 +1008,17 @@ static int sk_psock_verdict_recv(read_descriptor_t *desc, struct sk_buff *skb,
              goto out;
      }
      skb_set_owner_r(skb, sk);
+     if (!skb_ext_add(skb, SKB_EXT_BPF)) {
+             len = 0;
+             kfree_skb(skb);
+             goto out;
+     }
+

per packet cost here. Perhaps you can argue small alloc will usually not be
noticable in such a large stack, but once we convert over it will be very
hard to go back. And I'm looking at optimizing this path now.

This is a price we need to pay to avoid CB, and skb_ext_add() has been
used on other fast paths too, for example, tcf_classify_ingress() and
mptcp_incoming_options(). So, it is definitely acceptable.

quoted

      prog = READ_ONCE(psock->progs.skb_verdict);
      if (likely(prog)) {
-             tcp_skb_bpf_redirect_clear(skb);
+             skb_bpf_ext_redirect_clear(skb);
              ret = sk_psock_bpf_run(psock, prog, skb);
-             ret = sk_psock_map_verd(ret, tcp_skb_bpf_redirect_fetch(skb));
+             ret = sk_psock_map_verd(ret, skb_bpf_ext_redirect_fetch(skb));
      }
      sk_psock_verdict_apply(psock, skb, ret);

Thanks for the series Cong. Drop this patch and resubmit carry ACKs forward
and then lets revisit this later.

I still believe it is best to stay in this patchset, as it does not change
any functionality and is a preparation too. And the next patchset will be
UDP/AF_UNIX changes as you suggested, it is very awkward to put this
patch into either UDP or AF_UNIX changes.

So, let's keep it in this patchset, and I am happy to address any concerns
and open to other ideas than using skb ext.

Thanks.