Re: [PATCH net-next] tuntap: Fallback to automq on TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog negative return

[Matt Cover]

On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:46 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/9/23 äå1:43, Matt Cover wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 5:37 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:58:43AM -0700, Matthew Cover wrote:
> >>> Treat a negative return from a TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF bpf prog as a signal
> >>> to fallback to tun_automq_select_queue() for tx queue selection.
> >>>
> >>> Compilation of this exact patch was tested.
> >>>
> >>> For functional testing 3 additional printk()s were added.
> >>>
> >>> Functional testing results (on 2 txq tap device):
> >>>
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] ========== tun no prog ==========
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_ebpf_select_queue() returned '-1'
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_automq_select_queue() ran
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] ========== tun prog -1 ==========
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: bpf_prog_run_clear_cb() returned '-1'
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_ebpf_select_queue() returned '-1'
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_automq_select_queue() ran
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] ========== tun prog 0 ==========
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: bpf_prog_run_clear_cb() returned '0'
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_ebpf_select_queue() returned '0'
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] ========== tun prog 1 ==========
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: bpf_prog_run_clear_cb() returned '1'
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_ebpf_select_queue() returned '1'
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] ========== tun prog 2 ==========
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: bpf_prog_run_clear_cb() returned '2'
> >>>    [Fri Sep 20 18:33:27 2019] tuntap: tun_ebpf_select_queue() returned '0'
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Cover <matthew.cover@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Could you add a bit more motivation data here?
> > Thank you for these questions Michael.
> >
> > I'll plan on adding the below information to the
> > commit message and submitting a v2 of this patch
> > when net-next reopens. In the meantime, it would
> > be very helpful to know if these answers address
> > some of your concerns.
> >
> >> 1. why is this a good idea
> > This change allows TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF progs to
> > do any of the following.
> >   1. implement queue selection for a subset of
> >      traffic (e.g. special queue selection logic
> >      for ipv4, but return negative and use the
> >      default automq logic for ipv6)
>
>
> Well, using ebpf means it need to take care of all the cases. E.g you
> can easily implement the fallback through eBPF as well.
>

I really think there is value in being
able to implement a scoped special
case while leaving the rest of the
packets in the kernel's hands.

Having to reimplement automq makes
this hookpoint less accessible to
beginners and experienced alike.

>
> >   2. determine there isn't sufficient information
> >      to do proper queue selection; return
> >      negative and use the default automq logic
> >      for the unknown
>
>
> Same as above.
>
>
> >   3. implement a noop prog (e.g. do
> >      bpf_trace_printk() then return negative and
> >      use the default automq logic for everything)
>
>
> ditto.
>
>
> >
> >> 2. how do we know existing userspace does not rely on existing behaviour
> > Prior to this change a negative return from a
> > TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog would have been cast
> > into a u16 and traversed netdev_cap_txqueue().
> >
> > In most cases netdev_cap_txqueue() would have
> > found this value to exceed real_num_tx_queues
> > and queue_index would be updated to 0.
> >
> > It is possible that a TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF prog
> > return a negative value which when cast into a
> > u16 results in a positive queue_index less than
> > real_num_tx_queues. For example, on x86_64, a
> > return value of -65535 results in a queue_index
> > of 1; which is a valid queue for any multiqueue
> > device.
> >
> > It seems unlikely, however as stated above is
> > unfortunately possible, that existing
> > TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF programs would choose to
> > return a negative value rather than return the
> > positive value which holds the same meaning.
> >
> > It seems more likely that future
> > TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF programs would leverage a
> > negative return and potentially be loaded into
> > a kernel with the old behavior.
>
>
> Yes, eBPF can return probably wrong value, but what kernel did is just
> to make sure it doesn't harm anything.
>
> I would rather just drop the packet in this case.
>

In addition to TUN_SSE_ABORT, we can
add TUN_SSE_DROP. That could be made the
default for any undefined negative
return as well.

> Thanks
>
>
> >
> >> 3. why doesn't userspace need a way to figure out whether it runs on a kernel with and
> >>     without this patch
> > There may be some value in exposing this fact
> > to the ebpf prog loader. What is the standard
> > practice here, a define?
> >
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> MST
> >>
> >>> ---
> >>>   drivers/net/tun.c | 20 +++++++++++---------
> >>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> >>> index aab0be4..173d159 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> >>> @@ -583,35 +583,37 @@ static u16 tun_automq_select_queue(struct tun_struct *tun, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >>>        return txq;
> >>>   }
> >>>
> >>> -static u16 tun_ebpf_select_queue(struct tun_struct *tun, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >>> +static int tun_ebpf_select_queue(struct tun_struct *tun, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >>>   {
> >>>        struct tun_prog *prog;
> >>>        u32 numqueues;
> >>> -     u16 ret = 0;
> >>> +     int ret = -1;
> >>>
> >>>        numqueues = READ_ONCE(tun->numqueues);
> >>>        if (!numqueues)
> >>>                return 0;
> >>>
> >>> +     rcu_read_lock();
> >>>        prog = rcu_dereference(tun->steering_prog);
> >>>        if (prog)
> >>>                ret = bpf_prog_run_clear_cb(prog->prog, skb);
> >>> +     rcu_read_unlock();
> >>>
> >>> -     return ret % numqueues;
> >>> +     if (ret >= 0)
> >>> +             ret %= numqueues;
> >>> +
> >>> +     return ret;
> >>>   }
> >>>
> >>>   static u16 tun_select_queue(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb,
> >>>                            struct net_device *sb_dev)
> >>>   {
> >>>        struct tun_struct *tun = netdev_priv(dev);
> >>> -     u16 ret;
> >>> +     int ret;
> >>>
> >>> -     rcu_read_lock();
> >>> -     if (rcu_dereference(tun->steering_prog))
> >>> -             ret = tun_ebpf_select_queue(tun, skb);
> >>> -     else
> >>> +     ret = tun_ebpf_select_queue(tun, skb);
> >>> +     if (ret < 0)
> >>>                ret = tun_automq_select_queue(tun, skb);
> >>> -     rcu_read_unlock();
> >>>
> >>>        return ret;
> >>>   }
> >>> --
> >>> 1.8.3.1