On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 09:36:46 +0200 Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2022-08-17 at 19:35 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > +To get information about the Generic Netlink family named for example > > +``"test1"`` we need to send a message on the previously opened Generic Netlink > > +socket. The message should target the Generic Netlink Family (1), be a > > +``do`` (2) call to ``CTRL_CMD_GETFAMILY`` (3). A ``dump`` version of this > > +call would make the kernel respond with information about *all* the families > > +it knows about. Last but not least the name of the family in question has > > +to be specified (4) as an attribute with the appropriate type:: > > + > > + struct nlmsghdr: > > + __u32 nlmsg_len: 32 > > + __u16 nlmsg_type: GENL_ID_CTRL // (1) > > + __u16 nlmsg_flags: NLM_F_REQUEST | NLM_F_ACK // (2) > > + __u32 nlmsg_seq: 1 > > + __u32 nlmsg_pid: 0 > > + > > + struct genlmsghdr: > > + __u8 cmd: CTRL_CMD_GETFAMILY // (3) > > + __u8 version: 2 /* or 1, doesn't matter */ > > + __u16 reserved: 0 > > + > > + struct nlattr: // (4) > > + __u16 nla_len: 10 > > + __u16 nla_type: CTRL_ATTR_FAMILY_NAME > > + char data: test1\0 > > + > > + (padding:) > > + char data: \0\0 > > + > > +The length fields in Netlink (:c:member:`nlmsghdr.nlmsg_len` > > +and :c:member:`nlattr.nla_len`) always *include* the header. > > +Headers in netlink must be aligned to 4 bytes from the start of the message, > > s/Headers/Attribute headers/ perhaps? Theoretically I think we also align what I called "fixed metadata headers", practically all of those are multiple of 4 :S > > +hence the extra ``\0\0`` at the end of the message. > > And I think technically for the _last_ attribute it wouldn't be needed? True, it's not strictly necessary AFAIU. Should I mention it or would that be over-complicating things? I believe that kernel will accept both forms (without tripping the trailing data warning), and both the kernel and mnl will pad out the last attr. > > +If the family is found kernel will reply with two messages, the response > > +with all the information about the family:: > > + > > + /* Message #1 - reply */ > > + struct nlmsghdr: > > + __u32 nlmsg_len: 136 > > + __u16 nlmsg_type: GENL_ID_CTRL > > + __u16 nlmsg_flags: 0 > > + __u32 nlmsg_seq: 1 /* echoed from our request */ > > + __u32 nlmsg_pid: 5831 /* The PID of our user space process */ > > s/PID/netlink port ID/ > > It's actually whatever you choose, I think? Lots of libraries will > choose (something based on) the process ID, but that's not really > needed? > > (autobind is different maybe?) I'll respond below. > > + /* Message #2 - the ACK */ > > + struct nlmsghdr: > > + __u32 nlmsg_len: 36 > > + __u16 nlmsg_type: NLMSG_ERROR > > + __u16 nlmsg_flags: NLM_F_CAPPED /* There won't be a payload */ > > + __u32 nlmsg_seq: 1 /* echoed from our request */ > > + __u32 nlmsg_pid: 5831 /* The PID of our user space process */ > > (same here of course) > > > +``NLMSGERR_ATTR_MSG`` carries a message in English describing > > +the encountered problem. These messages are far more detailed > > +than what can be expressed thru standard UNIX error codes. > > "through"? How much do you care? Maybe Jon has guidelines? I heard somewhere that some of English spelling was complicated by the type-setters they imported from Belgium with the first printing presses. Those dudes supposedly just picked the spelling they felt was right.. based on how they'd spell it back home. Ever since I heard that I felt much less guilty using shorter, more logical spellings. > > +Querying family information is useful in rare cases when user space needs > > debatable if that's "rare", but yeah, today it's not done much :) Some of the text is written with the implicit goal of comforting the newcomer ;) > > +.. _nlmsg_pid: > > + > > +nlmsg_pid > > +--------- > > + > > +:c:member:`nlmsghdr.nlmsg_pid` is called PID because the protocol predates > > +wide spread use of multi-threading and the initial recommendation was > > +to use process ID in this field. Process IDs start from 1 hence the use > > +of ``0`` to mean "allocate automatically". > > + > > +The field is still used today in rare cases when kernel needs to send > > +a unicast notification. User space application can use bind() to associate > > +its socket with a specific PID (similarly to binding to a UDP port), > > +it then communicates its PID to the kernel. > > +The kernel can now reach the user space process. > > + > > +This sort of communication is utilized in UMH (user mode helper)-like > > +scenarios when kernel needs to trigger user space logic or ask user > > +space for a policy decision. > > + > > +Kernel will automatically fill the field with process ID when responding > > +to a request sent with the :c:member:`nlmsghdr.nlmsg_pid` value of ``0``. > > I think this could be written a bit better - we call this thing a "port > ID" internally now, and yes, it might default to a process ID (more > specifically task group ID) ... but it feels like this could explain > bind vs. autobind etc. a bit more? And IMHO it should focus less on the > process ID/PID than saying "port ID" with a (historical) default of > using the PID/TGID. I'll rewrite. The only use I'm aware of is OvS upcalls, are there more? Practically speaking for a person trying to make a ethtool, FOU, devlink etc. call to the kernel this is 100% irrelevant. > > +Strict checking > > +--------------- > > + > > +The ``NETLINK_GET_STRICT_CHK`` socket option enables strict input checking > > +in ``NETLINK_ROUTE``. It was needed because historically kernel did not > > +validate the fields of structures it didn't process. This made it impossible > > +to start using those fields later without risking regressions in applications > > +which initialized them incorrectly or not at all. > > + > > +``NETLINK_GET_STRICT_CHK`` declares that the application is initializing > > +all fields correctly. It also opts into validating that message does not > > +contain trailing data and requests that kernel rejects attributes with > > +type higher than largest attribute type known to the kernel. > > + > > +``NETLINK_GET_STRICT_CHK`` is not used outside of ``NETLINK_ROUTE``. > > However, there are also more generally strict checks in policy > validation ... maybe a discussion of all that would be worthwhile? Yeah :( It's too much to describe to a newcomer, I figured. I refer those who care to the enum field in the next section. We'd need a full table of families and attrs which start strict(er) validation.. bah. Too much technical debt. > > +Unknown attributes > > +------------------ > > + > > +Historically Netlink ignored all unknown attributes. The thinking was that > > +it would free the application from having to probe what kernel supports. > > +The application could make a request to change the state and check which > > +parts of the request "stuck". > > + > > +This is no longer the case for new Generic Netlink families and those opting > > +in to strict checking. See enum netlink_validation for validation types > > +performed. > > OK some of that is this, but some of it is also the strict length checks > e.g. for Ethernet addresses. > > > +Fixed metadata and structures > > +----------------------------- > > + > > +Classic Netlink made liberal use of fixed-format structures within > > +the messages. Messages would commonly have a structure with > > +a considerable number of fields after struct nlmsghdr. It was also > > +common to put structures with multiple members inside attributes, > > +without breaking each member into an attribute of its own. > > That reads very descriptive and historic without making a recommendation > - I know it's in the section, but maybe do say something like "This is > discouraged now and attributes should be used instead"? Will do! > Either way, thanks for doing this, it's a great overview! > > We might add: > - availability of attribute policy introspection > (you mention family introspection only I think) I did mention it, my preference would be that more detail should be in the genetlink documentation, rather than here. > - do we want to bring in the whole "per operation" vs. "per genetlink > family" attribute policy? Nope :) > (I'm firmly on the "single policy for the whole family" side ...) Well, it is causing us grief in devlink at least ;) No strong preference. > - maybe not the appropriate place here, but maybe some best practices > for handling attributes, such as the multi-attribute array thing we > discussed in the other thread? Right, this doc is meant for the user rather than kernel dev. I'm planning to write a separate doc for the kernel dev. I started writing this one as guide for a person who would like to write a YAML NL library for their fav user space language but has no prior knowledge of netlink and does not know where to start. > - maybe more userspace recommendations such as using different sockets > for multicast listeners and requests, because otherwise it gets > tricky to wait for the ACK of a request since you have to handle > notifications that happen meanwhile? Hm, good point. I should add a section on multicast and make it part of that. > - maybe some mention of the fact that sometimes we now bind kernel > object or state lifetime to a socket, e.g. in wireless you can > connect and if your userspace crashes/closes the socket, the > connection is automatically torn down (because you can't handle the > things needed anymore) 😍 Can you point me to the code? (probably too advanced for this doc but the idea seems super useful!) > - maybe something about message sizes? we've had lots of trouble with > that in nl80211, but tbh I'm not really sure what we should say about > it other than making sure you use large enough buffers ... Yes :S What's the error reported when the buffer is too small? recv() = -1, errno = EMSGSIZE? Does the message get discarded or can it be re-read? I don't have practical experience with that one.
