Re: No direct copy from ctx to map possible, why?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



In your particular example, since you intend to copy xdp_md->data, you can directly access that from xdp_md->data pointer, there is no need to copy ctx which is not what you want.
Thanks for your answer, but I think you misunderstood me. I need to store the packet's payload in a map (not the xdp_md structure itself), because my use case forces me to do so.

I write a program that reassembles split packets into a single one. Therefore I have to buffer packet fragments until all have been arrived. The only way in eBPF to realize such a buffer is a map, so I have to put the packet's payload in there. My problem is, that I have no clue how to do it properly as there is no direct way to put the payload into a map.

How would you put a packet with a size of 700 bytes into a map? What would be your strategy when you can only access your packet via the xdp_md structure? My strategy (and that's the best I have found so far) is to split this packet into two packets of size 350 bytes, so that I can process them on the stack consecutively.

On 4/16/24 5:22 AM, Yonghong Song wrote:

On 4/15/24 1:25 PM, Fabian Pfitzner wrote:
Looks like you intend to copy packet data. So from the above, 'expected=fp,pkt,pkt_meta...', you can just put the first argument with xdp->data, right?
Yes, I intend to copy packet data. What do you mean by "first argument"? I'd like to put the whole data that is depicted by xdp->data into a map that stores them as raw bytes (by using a char array as map element to store the data).

Sorry, typo. 'first argument' should be 'third argument'.


Verifer rejects to 'ctx' since 'ctx' contents are subject to verifier rewrite. So actual 'ctx' contents/layouts may not match uapi definition.
Sorry but I do not understand what you mean by "subject to verifier rewrite". What kind of rewrite happens when using the ctx as argument? Furthermore, am I correct that you assume that the uapi may dictate the structure of the data that can be stored in a map? How is it different to the case when first storing it on the stack and then putting it into a map?

The UAPI xdp_md struct:

struct xdp_md {
        __u32 data;
        __u32 data_end;
        __u32 data_meta;
        /* Below access go through struct xdp_rxq_info */
        __u32 ingress_ifindex; /* rxq->dev->ifindex */
        __u32 rx_queue_index;  /* rxq->queue_index  */

        __u32 egress_ifindex;  /* txq->dev->ifindex */
};

The actual kernel representation of xdp_md:

struct xdp_buff {
        void *data;
        void *data_end;
        void *data_meta;
        void *data_hard_start;
        struct xdp_rxq_info *rxq;
        struct xdp_txq_info *txq;
        u32 frame_sz; /* frame size to deduce data_hard_end/reserved tailroom*/
        u32 flags; /* supported values defined in xdp_buff_flags */
};

You can see they are quite different. So to use pointee of 'ctx' as the key, we need to allocate a space of sizeof(struct_md) to the stack and copy necessary stuff to that structure. For example, xdp_md->ingress_ifindex = xdp_buff->rxq->dev->ifindex, etc. Some fields actually does not make sense for copying, e.g., data/data_end/data_meta in 64bit architecture. Since stack allocation is needed any way, so disabling ctx and requires user explicit using stack make sense (if they want to use *ctx as map update value).

In your particular example, since you intend to copy xdp_md->data, you can directly access that from xdp_md->data pointer, there is no need to copy ctx which is not
what you want.


On 4/15/24 6:01 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:

On 4/14/24 2:34 PM, Fabian Pfitzner wrote:
Hello,

is there a specific reason why it is not allowed to copy data from ctx directly into a map via the bpf_map_update_elem helper? I develop a XDP program where I need to store incoming packets (including the whole payload) into a map in order to buffer them. I thought I could simply put them into a map via the mentioned helper function, but the verifier complains about expecting another type as "ctx" (R3 type=ctx expected=fp, pkt, pkt_meta, .....).

Looks like you intend to copy packet data. So from the above, 'expected=fp,pkt,pkt_meta...', you can just put the first argument
with xdp->data, right?
Verifer rejects to 'ctx' since 'ctx' contents are subject to verifier rewrite. So actual 'ctx' contents/layouts may not match uapi definition.


I was able to circumvent this error by first putting the packet onto the stack (via xdp->data) and then write it into the map. The only limitation with this is that I cannot store packets larger than 512 bytes due to the maximum stack size.

I was also able to circumvent this by slicing chunks, that are smaller than 512 bytes, out of the packet so that I can use the stack as a clipboard before putting them into the map. This is a really ugly solution, but I have not found a better one yet.

So my question is: Why does this limitation exist? I am not sure if its only related to XDP programs as this restriction is defined inside of the bpf_map_update_elem_proto struct (arg3_type restricts this), so I think it is a general limitation that affects all program types.

Best regards,
Fabian Pfitzner









[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux