Re: [PATCH bpf-next 3/5] libbpf: add low level TC-BPF API

Andrii Nakryiko [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:06 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Andrii Nakryiko [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:47 AM Alexei Starovoitov
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:38:06AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:02:14AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:27 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

[...]

All of these things are messy because of tc legacy. bpf tried to follow tc style
with cls and act distinction and it didn't quite work. cls with
direct-action is the only
thing that became mainstream while tc style attach wasn't really addressed.
There were several incidents where tc had tens of thousands of progs attached
because of this attach/query/index weirdness described above.
I think the only way to address this properly is to introduce bpf_link style of
attaching to tc. Such bpf_link would support ingress/egress only.
direction-action will be implied. There won't be any index and query
will be obvious.

Note that we already have bpf_link support working (without support for pinning
ofcourse) in a limited way. The ifindex, protocol, parent_id, priority, handle,
chain_index tuple uniquely identifies a filter, so we stash this in the bpf_link
and are able to operate on the exact filter during release.

Except they're not unique. The library can stash them, but something else
doing detach via iproute2 or their own netlink calls will detach the prog.
This other app can attach to the same spot a different prog and now
bpf_link__destroy will be detaching somebody else prog.

quoted

quoted

So I would like to propose to take this patch set a step further from
what Daniel said:
int bpf_tc_attach(prog_fd, ifindex, {INGRESS,EGRESS}):
and make this proposed api to return FD.
To detach from tc ingress/egress just close(fd).

You mean adding an fd-based TC API to the kernel?

yes.

I'm totally for bpf_link-based TC attachment.

But I think *also* having "legacy" netlink-based APIs will allow
applications to handle older kernels in a much nicer way without extra
dependency on iproute2. We have a similar situation with kprobe, where
currently libbpf only supports "modern" fd-based attachment, but users
periodically ask questions and struggle to figure out issues on older
kernels that don't support new APIs.

+1; I am OK with adding a new bpf_link-based way to attach TC programs,
but we still need to support the netlink API in libbpf.

quoted

So I think we'd have to support legacy TC APIs, but I agree with
Alexei and Daniel that we should keep it to the simplest and most
straightforward API of supporting direction-action attachments and
setting up qdisc transparently (if I'm getting all the terminology
right, after reading Quentin's blog post). That coincidentally should
probably match how bpf_link-based TC API will look like, so all that
can be abstracted behind a single bpf_link__attach_tc() API as well,
right? That's the plan for dealing with kprobe right now, btw. Libbpf
will detect the best available API and transparently fall back (maybe
with some warning for awareness, due to inherent downsides of legacy
APIs: no auto-cleanup being the most prominent one).

Yup, SGTM: Expose both in the low-level API (in bpf.c), and make the
high-level API auto-detect. That way users can also still use the
netlink attach function if they don't want the fd-based auto-close
behaviour of bpf_link.

So I thought a bit more about this, and it feels like the right move
would be to expose only higher-level TC BPF API behind bpf_link. It
will keep the API complexity and amount of APIs that libbpf will have
to support to the minimum, and will keep the API itself simple:
direct-attach with the minimum amount of input arguments. By not
exposing low-level APIs we also table the whole bpf_tc_cls_attach_id
design discussion, as we now can keep as much info as needed inside
bpf_link_tc (which will embed bpf_link internally as well) to support
detachment and possibly some additional querying, if needed.

But then there would be no way for the caller to explicitly select a
mechanism? I.e., if I write a BPF program using this mechanism targeting
a 5.12 kernel, I'll get netlink attachment, which can stick around when
I do bpf_link__disconnect(). But then if the kernel gets upgraded to
support bpf_link for TC programs I'll suddenly transparently get
bpf_link and the attachments will go away unless I pin them. This
seems... less than ideal?

If we expose the low-level API I can elect to just use this if I know I
want netlink behaviour, but if bpf_program__attach_tc() is the only API
available it would at least need a flag to enforce one mode or the other
(I can see someone wanting to enforce kernel bpf_link semantics as well,
so a flag for either mode seems reasonable?).

-Toke