Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 5/24/24 12:40 AM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> I think behaviour like this is potentially quite interesting and will >> allow some neat optimisations (skipping a redirect to a different >> interface and just directly enqueueing it to a different place comes to > > hmm... I am not sure it is a good/safe optimization. From looking at > skb_do_redirect, there are quite a few things bypassed from > __dev_queue_xmit upto the final dequeue of the redirected dev. I don't > know if all of them is not dev dependent. There are certainly footguns, but as long as they are of the "break the data path" variety and not the "immediately crash the kernel" variety that may be OK. After all, you can already do plenty of convoluted things with BPF that will break things. And glancing through the redirect code, nothing immediately jumps out as something that will definitely crash, AFAICT. However, it does feel a bit risky, so I am also totally fine with disallowing this until someone comes up with a concrete use case where it would be beneficial :) >> mind). However, as you point out it may lead to weird things like a >> mismatched skb->dev, so if we allow this we should make sure that the >> kernel will disallow (or fix) such behaviour. > > Have been thinking about the skb->dev "fix" but the thought is originally for > the bpf_skb_set_dev() use case in patch 14. > > Note that the struct_ops ".dequeue" is actually realized by a fentry trampoline > (call it fentry ".dequeue"). May be using an extra fexit ".dequeue" here. The > fexit ".dequeue" will be called after the fentry ".dequeue". The fexit > ".dequeue" has the function arguments (sch here that has the correct dev) and > the return value (skb) from the fentry ".dequeue". This will be an extra call > (to the fexit ".dequeue") and very specific to this use case but may be the less > evil solution I can think of now... That's an interesting idea, certainly! Relying on fexit functions to do specific sanity checks/fixups after a BPF program has run (enforcing/checking post-conditions, basically) does not seem totally crazy to me, and may have other applications :) -Toke
