Hi Willem,
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 08:58:37PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Willem,
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 04:52:58PM -0500, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> >> Support arbitrary linux socket filter (BPF) programs as iptables
> >> match rules. This allows for very expressive filters, and on
> >> platforms with BPF JIT appears competitive with traditional hardcoded
> >> iptables rules.
> >>
> >> At least, on an x86_64 that achieves 40K netperf TCP_STREAM without
> >> any iptables rules (40 GBps),
> >>
> >> inserting 100x this bpf rule gives 28K
> >>
> >> ./iptables -A OUTPUT -m bpf --bytecode '6,40 0 0 14, 21 0 3 2048,48 0 0 25,21 0 1 20,6 0 0 96,6 0 0 0,' -j
> >>
> >> (as generated by tcpdump -i any -ddd ip proto 20 | tr '\n' ',')
> >>
> >> inserting 100x this u32 rule gives 21K
> >>
> >> ./iptables -A OUTPUT -m u32 --u32 '6&0xFF=0x20' -j DROP
> >>
> >> The two are logically equivalent, as far as I can tell. Let me know
> >> if my test methodology is flawed in some way. Even in cases where
> >> slower, the filter adds functionality currently lacking in iptables,
> >> such as access to sk_buff fields like rxhash and queue_mapping.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/netfilter/xt_bpf.h | 17 +++++++
> >> net/netfilter/Kconfig | 9 ++++
> >> net/netfilter/Makefile | 1 +
> >> net/netfilter/x_tables.c | 5 +-
> >> net/netfilter/xt_bpf.c | 86 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 5 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> create mode 100644 include/linux/netfilter/xt_bpf.h
> >> create mode 100644 net/netfilter/xt_bpf.c
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/netfilter/xt_bpf.h b/include/linux/netfilter/xt_bpf.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..23502c0
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/include/linux/netfilter/xt_bpf.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
> >> +#ifndef _XT_BPF_H
> >> +#define _XT_BPF_H
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/filter.h>
> >> +#include <linux/types.h>
> >> +
> >> +struct xt_bpf_info {
> >> + __u16 bpf_program_num_elem;
> >> +
> >> + /* only used in kernel */
> >> + struct sk_filter *filter __attribute__((aligned(8)));
> >
> > I see. You set match->userspacesize to zero in libxt_bpf to skip the
> > comparison of that internal struct sk_filter *filter.
> >
> >> +
> >> + /* variable size, based on program_num_elem */
> >> + struct sock_filter bpf_program[0];
> >
> > While testing this I noticed:
> >
> > iptables -I OUTPUT -m bpf --bytecode \
> > '6,40 0 0 14, 21 0 3 2048,48 0 0 25,21 0 1 20,6 0 0 96,6 0 0 0' -j ACCEPT
> >
> > Note that this works but it should not.
> >
> > iptables -D OUTPUT -m bpf --bytecode \
> > '6,40 0 0 14, 21 0 3 2048,48 0 0 25,21 0 1 20,6 0 0 96,1 0 0 0' -j ACCEPT
> > ^
> > Mind that 1, it's a different filter, but it deletes the previous
> > filter without problems here.
> >
> > A quick look at make_delete_mask() in iptables tells me that the
> > changes you made to userspace to allow variable size matches are not
> > enough to generate a sane mask (which is fundamental while looking for
> > a matching rule during the deletion).
>
> Thanks for finding this, Pablo. I completely forgot to check that.
>
> I've never looked at that deletion code before. Will read it and
> hopefully propose a simple fix in a few days. An earlier version of
> the patch used a statically sized struct, by the way, like xt_string
> does (XT_STRING_MAX_PATTERN_SIZE). If it is easier to
> incorporate, we can always revert to that.
I prefer if this sticks to static size by now. The problem is that
BPF_MAXINSNS is probably too much to allocate per rule. So you'll have
to limit this to some reasonable amount of lines in the filter.
Please, also check that iptables-save and iptables-restore work fine,
there is also some problem with the existing code.
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
