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

[Toke Høiland-Jørgensen]

Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 3/30/21 10:39 PM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 1:11 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
>> <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 10:12:40AM IST, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>>>> Is there some succinct but complete enough documentation/tutorial/etc
>>>> that I can reasonably read to understand kernel APIs provided by TC
>>>> (w.r.t. BPF, of course). I'm trying to wrap my head around this and
>>>> whether API makes sense or not. Please share links, if you have some.
>>>
>>> Hi Andrii,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for the kernel API part, I couldn't find any when I was working
>>> on this. So I had to read the iproute2 tc code (tc_filter.c, f_bpf.c,
>>> m_action.c, m_bpf.c) and the kernel side bits (cls_api.c, cls_bpf.c, act_api.c,
>>> act_bpf.c) to grok anything I didn't understand. There's also similar code in
>>> libnl (lib/route/{act,cls}.c).
>>>
>>> Other than that, these resources were useful (perhaps you already went through
>>> some/all of them):
>>>
>>> https://docs.cilium.io/en/latest/bpf/#tc-traffic-control
>>> https://qmonnet.github.io/whirl-offload/2020/04/11/tc-bpf-direct-action/
>>> tc(8), and tc-bpf(8) man pages
>>>
>>> I hope this is helpful!
>> 
>> Thanks! I'll take a look. Sorry, I'm a bit behind with all the stuff,
>> trying to catch up.
>> 
>> I was just wondering if it would be more natural instead of having
>> _dev _block variants and having to specify __u32 ifindex, __u32
>> parent_id, __u32 protocol, to have some struct specifying TC
>> "destination"? Maybe not, but I thought I'd bring this up early. So
>> you'd have just bpf_tc_cls_attach(), and you'd so something like
>> 
>> bpf_tc_cls_attach(prog_fd, TC_DEV(ifindex, parent_id, protocol))
>> 
>> or
>> 
>> bpf_tc_cls_attach(prog_fd, TC_BLOCK(block_idx, protocol))
>> 
>> ? Or it's taking it too far?
>> 
>> But even if not, I think detaching can be unified between _dev and
>> _block, can't it?
>
> Do we even need the _block variant? I would rather prefer to take the chance
> and make it as simple as possible, and only iff really needed extend with
> other APIs, for example:
>
>    bpf_tc_attach(prog_fd, ifindex, {INGRESS,EGRESS});
>
> Internally, this will create the sch_clsact qdisc & cls_bpf filter instance
> iff not present yet, and attach to a default prio 1 handle 1, and _always_ in
> direct-action mode. This is /as simple as it gets/ and we don't need to bother
> users with more complex tc/cls_bpf internals unless desired. For example,
> extended APIs could add prio/parent so that multi-prog can be attached to a
> single cls_bpf instance, but even that could be a second step, imho.

While I'm all for simplifying where possible, the question becomes at
what level? I.e., we initially figured we'd expose (most of) the netlink
API in the low-level API (patch 3 in the series) and then have the
bpf_program__* level API be the simple "just attach" one...

We could simplify the low-level one further, of course, for instance by
getting rid of the block stuff entirely, but I don't see much value in
leaving out the support for prio/parent in the bpf_tc_cls_* - we'd have
to make the API extensible so it could be added later anyway, so why not
just include it from the get-go (especially as Kumar has already written
the code?)

-Toke