Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
n> On 10/8/20 10:59 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>> On 10/8/20 4:53 PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>>>> The bpf_fib_lookup() helper performs a neighbour lookup for the destination
>>>> IP and returns BPF_FIB_LKUP_NO_NEIGH if this fails, with the expectation
>>>> that the BPF program will pass the packet up the stack in this case.
>>>> However, with the addition of bpf_redirect_neigh() that can be used instead
>>>> to perform the neighbour lookup.
>>>>
>>>> However, for that we still need the target ifindex, and since
>>>> bpf_fib_lookup() already has that at the time it performs the neighbour
>>>> lookup, there is really no reason why it can't just return it in any case.
>>>> With this fix, a BPF program can do the following to perform a redirect
>>>> based on the routing table that will succeed even if there is no neighbour
>>>> entry:
>>>>
>>>> ret = bpf_fib_lookup(skb, &fib_params, sizeof(fib_params), 0);
>>>> if (ret == BPF_FIB_LKUP_RET_SUCCESS) {
>>>> __builtin_memcpy(eth->h_dest, fib_params.dmac, ETH_ALEN);
>>>> __builtin_memcpy(eth->h_source, fib_params.smac, ETH_ALEN);
>>>>
>>>> return bpf_redirect(fib_params.ifindex, 0);
>>>> } else if (ret == BPF_FIB_LKUP_RET_NO_NEIGH) {
>>>> return bpf_redirect_neigh(fib_params.ifindex, 0);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> ACK, this looks super useful! Could you also add a new flag which would skip
>>> neighbor lookup in the helper while at it (follow-up would be totally fine from
>>> my pov since both are independent from each other)?
>>
>> Sure, can do. Thought about adding it straight away, but wasn't sure if
>> it would be useful, since the fib lookup has already done quite a lot of
>> work by then. But if you think it'd be useful, I can certainly add it.
>> I'll look at this tomorrow; if you merge this before then I'll do it as
>> a follow-up, and if not I'll respin with it added. OK? :)
>
> Sounds good to me; merge depending on David's final verdict in the other thread
> wrt commit description.
Yup, figured that'd be the case - great :)
-Toke
