On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 13:57:25 +0100, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 2024-02-09 at 18:39 +0800, Liang Chen wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 10:27 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 10:54 +0800, Liang Chen wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 6:44 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 2024-02-03 at 10:56 +0800, Liang Chen wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 12:20 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 02/02/2024 13.11, Liang Chen wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > @@ -1033,6 +1039,16 @@ static void put_xdp_frags(struct xdp_buff *xdp)
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +static void virtnet_xdp_save_rx_hash(struct virtnet_xdp_buff *virtnet_xdp,
> > > > > > > > + struct net_device *dev,
> > > > > > > > + struct virtio_net_hdr_v1_hash *hdr_hash)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + if (dev->features & NETIF_F_RXHASH) {
> > > > > > > > + virtnet_xdp->hash_value = hdr_hash->hash_value;
> > > > > > > > + virtnet_xdp->hash_report = hdr_hash->hash_report;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would it be possible to store a pointer to hdr_hash in virtnet_xdp_buff,
> > > > > > > with the purpose of delaying extracting this, until and only if XDP
> > > > > > > bpf_prog calls the kfunc?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That seems to be the way v1 works,
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240122102256.261374-1-liangchen.linux@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > > > > . But it was pointed out that the inline header may be overwritten by
> > > > > > the xdp prog, so the hash is copied out to maintain its integrity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why? isn't XDP supposed to get write access only to the pkt
> > > > > contents/buffer?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Normally, an XDP program accesses only the packet data. However,
> > > > there's also an XDP RX Metadata area, referenced by the data_meta
> > > > pointer. This pointer can be adjusted with bpf_xdp_adjust_meta to
> > > > point somewhere ahead of the data buffer, thereby granting the XDP
> > > > program access to the virtio header located immediately before the
> > >
> > > AFAICS bpf_xdp_adjust_meta() does not allow moving the meta_data before
> > > xdp->data_hard_start:
> > >
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/net/core/filter.c#L4210
> > >
> > > and virtio net set such field after the virtio_net_hdr:
> > >
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/virtio_net.c#L1218
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/net/virtio_net.c#L1420
> > >
> > > I don't see how the virtio hdr could be touched? Possibly even more
> > > important: if such thing is possible, I think is should be somewhat
> > > denied (for the same reason an H/W nic should prevent XDP from
> > > modifying its own buffer descriptor).
> >
> > Thank you for highlighting this concern. The header layout differs
> > slightly between small and mergeable mode. Taking 'mergeable mode' as
> > an example, after calling xdp_prepare_buff the layout of xdp_buff
> > would be as depicted in the diagram below,
> >
> > buf
> > |
> > v
> > +--------------+--------------+-------------+
> > | xdp headroom | virtio header| packet |
> > | (256 bytes) | (20 bytes) | content |
> > +--------------+--------------+-------------+
> > ^ ^
> > | |
> > data_hard_start data
> > data_meta
> >
> > If 'bpf_xdp_adjust_meta' repositions the 'data_meta' pointer a little
> > towards 'data_hard_start', it would point to the inline header, thus
> > potentially allowing the XDP program to access the inline header.
>
> I see. That layout was completely unexpected to me.
>
> AFAICS the virtio_net driver tries to avoid accessing/using the
> virtio_net_hdr after the XDP program execution, so nothing tragic
> should happen.
>
> @Michael, @Jason, I guess the above is like that by design? Isn't it a
> bit fragile?
YES. We process it carefully. That brings some troubles, we hope to put the
virtio-net header to the vring desc like other NICs. But that is a big project.
I think this patch is ok, this can be merged to net-next firstly.
Thanks.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Paolo
>
