Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/16] bpfilter

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

 



Quentin Deslandes <qde@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Le 03/01/2023 à 12:45, Florian Westphal a écrit :
> > You can't make this atomic from userspace perspective, the
> > get/setsockopt API of iptables uses a read-modify-write model.
> 
> This refers to updating the programs from bpfilter's side. It won't
> be atomic from iptables point of view, but currently bpfilter will
> remove the program associated to a table, before installing the new
> one. This means packets received in between those operations are
> not filtered. I assume a better solution is possible.

Ah, I see, thanks.

> > Tentatively I'd try to extend libnftnl and generate bpf code there,
> > since its used by both iptables(-nft) and nftables we'd automatically
> > get support for both.
> 
> That's one of the option, this could also remain in the kernel
> tree or in a dedicated git repository. I don't know which one would
> be the best, I'm open to suggestions.

I can imagine that this will see a flurry of activity in the early
phase so I think a 'semi test repo' makes sense.

Provideded license allows this, useable bits and pieces can then
be grafted on to libnftnl (or iptables or whatever).

> > I was planning to look into "attach bpf progs to raw netfilter hooks"
> > in Q1 2023, once the initial nf-bpf-codegen is merged.
> 
> Is there any plan to support non raw hooks? That's mainly out
> of curiosity, I don't even know whether that would be a good thing
> or not.

Not sure what 'non raw hook' is.  Idea was to expose

1. protcocol family
2. hook number (prerouting, input etc)
3. priority

to userspace via bpf syscall/bpf link.

userspace would then provide the above info to kernel via
bpf(... BPF_LINK_CREATE )

which would then end up doing:
--------------
h.hook = nf_hook_run_bpf; // wrapper to call BPF_PROG_RUN
h.priv = prog; // the bpf program to run
h.pf = attr->netfilter.pf;
h.priority = attr->netfilter.priority;
h.hooknum = attr->netfilter.hooknum;

nf_register_net_hook(net, &h);
--------------

After that nf_hook_slow() calls the bpf program just like any
other of the netfilter hooks.

Does that make sense or did you have something else in mind?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux