On 06/08, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 10:24 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/07, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > This adds a generic layer called bpf_mprog which can be reused by different
> > > attachment layers to enable multi-program attachment and dependency resolution.
> > > In-kernel users of the bpf_mprog don't need to care about the dependency
> > > resolution internals, they can just consume it with few API calls.
> > >
> > > The initial idea of having a generic API sparked out of discussion [0] from an
> > > earlier revision of this work where tc's priority was reused and exposed via
> > > BPF uapi as a way to coordinate dependencies among tc BPF programs, similar
> > > as-is for classic tc BPF. The feedback was that priority provides a bad user
> > > experience and is hard to use [1], e.g.:
> > >
> > > I cannot help but feel that priority logic copy-paste from old tc, netfilter
> > > and friends is done because "that's how things were done in the past". [...]
> > > Priority gets exposed everywhere in uapi all the way to bpftool when it's
> > > right there for users to understand. And that's the main problem with it.
> > >
> > > The user don't want to and don't need to be aware of it, but uapi forces them
> > > to pick the priority. [...] Your cover letter [0] example proves that in
> > > real life different service pick the same priority. They simply don't know
> > > any better. Priority is an unnecessary magic that apps _have_ to pick, so
> > > they just copy-paste and everyone ends up using the same.
> > >
> > > The course of the discussion showed more and more the need for a generic,
> > > reusable API where the "same look and feel" can be applied for various other
> > > program types beyond just tc BPF, for example XDP today does not have multi-
> > > program support in kernel, but also there was interest around this API for
> > > improving management of cgroup program types. Such common multi-program
> > > management concept is useful for BPF management daemons or user space BPF
> > > applications coordinating about their attachments.
> > >
> > > Both from Cilium and Meta side [2], we've collected the following requirements
> > > for a generic attach/detach/query API for multi-progs which has been implemented
> > > as part of this work:
> > >
> > > - Support prog-based attach/detach and link API
> > > - Dependency directives (can also be combined):
> > > - BPF_F_{BEFORE,AFTER} with relative_{fd,id} which can be {prog,link,none}
> > > - BPF_F_ID flag as {fd,id} toggle
> > > - BPF_F_LINK flag as {prog,link} toggle
> > > - If relative_{fd,id} is none, then BPF_F_BEFORE will just prepend, and
> > > BPF_F_AFTER will just append for the case of attaching
> > > - Enforced only at attach time
> > > - BPF_F_{FIRST,LAST}
> > > - Enforced throughout the bpf_mprog state's lifetime
> > > - Admin override possible (e.g. link detach, prog-based BPF_F_REPLACE)
> > > - Internal revision counter and optionally being able to pass expected_revision
> > > - User space daemon can query current state with revision, and pass it along
> > > for attachment to assert current state before doing updates
> > > - Query also gets extension for link_ids array and link_attach_flags:
> > > - prog_ids are always filled with program IDs
> > > - link_ids are filled with link IDs when link was used, otherwise 0
> > > - {prog,link}_attach_flags for holding {prog,link}-specific flags
> > > - Must be easy to integrate/reuse for in-kernel users
> > >
> > > The uapi-side changes needed for supporting bpf_mprog are rather minimal,
> > > consisting of the additions of the attachment flags, revision counter, and
> > > expanding existing union with relative_{fd,id} member.
> > >
> > > The bpf_mprog framework consists of an bpf_mprog_entry object which holds
> > > an array of bpf_mprog_fp (fast-path structure) and bpf_mprog_cp (control-path
> > > structure). Both have been separated, so that fast-path gets efficient packing
> > > of bpf_prog pointers for maximum cache efficieny. Also, array has been chosen
> > > instead of linked list or other structures to remove unnecessary indirections
> > > for a fast point-to-entry in tc for BPF. The bpf_mprog_entry comes as a pair
> > > via bpf_mprog_bundle so that in case of updates the peer bpf_mprog_entry
> > > is populated and then just swapped which avoids additional allocations that
> > > could otherwise fail, for example, in detach case. bpf_mprog_{fp,cp} arrays are
> > > currently static, but they could be converted to dynamic allocation if necessary
> > > at a point in future. Locking is deferred to the in-kernel user of bpf_mprog,
> > > for example, in case of tcx which uses this API in the next patch, it piggy-
> > > backs on rtnl. The nitty-gritty details are in the bpf_mprog_{replace,head_tail,
> > > add,del} implementation and an extensive test suite for checking all aspects
> > > of this API for prog-based attach/detach and link API as BPF selftests in
> > > this series.
> > >
> > > Kudos also to Andrii Nakryiko for API discussions wrt Meta's BPF management daemon.
> > >
> > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20221004231143.19190-1-daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAADnVQ+gEY3FjCR=+DmjDR4gp5bOYZUFJQXj4agKFHT9CQPZBw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [2] http://vger.kernel.org/bpfconf2023_material/tcx_meta_netdev_borkmann.pdf
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > MAINTAINERS | 1 +
> > > include/linux/bpf_mprog.h | 245 +++++++++++++++++
> > > include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 37 ++-
> > > kernel/bpf/Makefile | 2 +-
> > > kernel/bpf/mprog.c | 476 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h | 37 ++-
> > > 6 files changed, 781 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 include/linux/bpf_mprog.h
> > > create mode 100644 kernel/bpf/mprog.c
> > >
>
> [...]
>
> > > diff --git a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > index a7b5e91dd768..207f8a37b327 100644
> > > --- a/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > +++ b/tools/include/uapi/linux/bpf.h
> > > @@ -1102,7 +1102,14 @@ enum bpf_link_type {
> > > */
> > > #define BPF_F_ALLOW_OVERRIDE (1U << 0)
> > > #define BPF_F_ALLOW_MULTI (1U << 1)
> > > +/* Generic attachment flags. */
> > > #define BPF_F_REPLACE (1U << 2)
> > > +#define BPF_F_BEFORE (1U << 3)
> > > +#define BPF_F_AFTER (1U << 4)
> >
> > [..]
> >
> > > +#define BPF_F_FIRST (1U << 5)
> > > +#define BPF_F_LAST (1U << 6)
> >
> > I'm still not sure whether the hard semantics of first/last is really
> > useful. My worry is that some prog will just use BPF_F_FIRST which
> > would prevent the rest of the users.. (starting with only
> > F_BEFORE/F_AFTER feels 'safer'; we can iterate later on if we really
> > need first/laste).
>
> Without FIRST/LAST some scenarios cannot be guaranteed to be safely
> implemented. E.g., if I have some hard audit requirements and I need
> to guarantee that my program runs first and observes each event, I'll
> enforce BPF_F_FIRST when attaching it. And if that attachment fails,
> then server setup is broken and my application cannot function.
>
> In a setup where we expect multiple applications to co-exist, it
> should be a rule that no one is using FIRST/LAST (unless it's
> absolutely required). And if someone doesn't comply, then that's a bug
> and has to be reported to application owners.
>
> But it's not up to the kernel to enforce this cooperation by
> disallowing FIRST/LAST semantics, because that semantics is critical
> for some applications, IMO.
Maybe that's something that should be done by some other mechanism?
(and as a follow up, if needed) Something akin to what Toke
mentioned with another program doing sorting or similar.
Otherwise, those first/last are just plain simple old priority bands;
only we have two now, not u16.
I'm mostly coming from the observability point: imagine I have my fancy
tc_ingress_tcpdump program that I want to attach as a first program to debug
some issue, but it won't work because there is already a 'first' program
installed.. Or the assumption that I'd do F_REPLACE | F_FIRST ?
> > But if everyone besides myself is on board with first/last, maybe at least
> > put a comment here saying that only a single program can be first/last?
> > And the users are advised not to use these unless they really really really
> > need to be first/last. (IOW, feels like first/last should be reserved
> > for observability tools/etc).
>
> +1, we can definitely make it clear in API that this will prevent
> anyone else from being attached as FIRST/LAST, so it's not cooperative
> in nature and has to be very consciously evaluated.
>
> >
> > > +#define BPF_F_ID (1U << 7)
> > > +#define BPF_F_LINK BPF_F_LINK /* 1 << 13 */
> > >
> > > /* If BPF_F_STRICT_ALIGNMENT is used in BPF_PROG_LOAD command, the
> > > * verifier will perform strict alignment checking as if the kernel
>
> [...]
