On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:28:12AM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 05:32:11PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > The userspace helper translates the rules, and, if successful, installs the > > > generated program(s) via bpf syscall. > > > > > > For each rule a small response containing the corresponding epbf file > > > descriptor (can be -1 on failure) and a attribute count (how many > > > expressions were jitted) gets sent back to kernel via pipe. > > > > > > If translation fails, the rule is will be processed by nf_tables > > > interpreter (as before this patch). > > > > > > If translation succeeded, nf_tables fetches the bpf program using the file > > > descriptor identifier, allocates a new rule blob containing the new 'ebpf' > > > expression (and possible trailing un-translated expressions). > > > > > > It then replaces the original rule in the transaction log with the new > > > 'ebpf-rule'. The original rule is retained in a private area inside the epbf > > > expression to be able to present the original expressions back to userspace > > > on 'nft list ruleset'. > > > > > > For easier review, this contains the kernel-side only. > > > nf_tables_jit_work() will not do anything, yet. > > > > > > Unresolved issues: > > > - maps and sets. > > > It might be possible to add a new ebpf map type that just wraps > > > the nft set infrastructure for lookups. > > > This would allow nft userspace to continue to work as-is while > > > not requiring new ebpf helper. > > > Anonymous set should be a lot easier as they're immutable > > > and could probably be handled already by existing infra. > > > > > > - BPF_PROG_RUN() is bolted into nft main loop via a middleman expression. > > > I'm also abusing skb->cb[] to pass network and transport header offsets. > > > Its not 'public' api so this can be changed later. > > > > > > - always uses BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS. > > > This is because it "works" for current RFC purposes. > > > > > > - we should eventually support translating multiple (adjacent) rules > > > into single program. > > > > > > If we do this kernel will need to track mapping of rules to > > > program (to re-jit when a rule is changed. This isn't implemented > > > so far, but can be added later. Alternatively, one could also add a > > > 'readonly' table switch to just prevent further updates. > > > > > > We will also need to dump the 'next' generation of the > > > to-be-translated table. The kernel has this information, so its only > > > a matter of serializing it back to userspace from the commit phase. > > > > > > The jitter is still limited. So far it supports: > > > > > > * payload expression for network and transport header > > > * meta mark, nfproto, l4proto > > > * 32 bit immediates > > > * 32 bit bitmask ops > > > * accept/drop verdicts > > > > > > As this uses netlink, there is also no technical requirement for > > > libnftnl, its simply used here for convienience. > > > > > > It doesn't need any userspace changes. Patches for libnftnl and nftables > > > make debug info available (e.g. to map rule to its bpf prog id). > > > > > > Comments welcome. > > > > The implementation of patch 5 looks good to me, but I'm concerned with > > patch 2 that adds 'ebpf expression' to nft. I see no reason to do so. > > I think its important user(space) can see which rules are jitted, and > which ebpf prog corresponds to which rule(s), using an expression as > container allows to re-use existing nft config plane code to serialze > this via netlink attributes. In my mind it would be all or nothing. I don't think it helps to convert some rules and not all. > > It seems existing support for infinite number of nft expressions is > > used as a way to execute infinite number of bpf programs sequentially. > > In this RFC, yes. > > > I don't think it was a scalable approach before and won't scale in the future. > > I think the algorithm should consider all nft rules at once and generate > > a program or two that will execute fast even when number of rules is large. > > Yes, but existence of the epbf expression doesn't prevent doing this in > the future. Doing it now complicates things and given unresolved issues > (see above cover letter) I'm reluctant to implement this already. The > UMH in this RFC can translate only a very small subset of > expressions. To make full-table realistic I think issues outlined above > need to be addressed first. > > It can be done, in such case the epbf expression would replace not just > rule but possibly all of them. I think 'all of them' is mandatory. Same for bpfilter. Existing iptables/nft work as fallback already. Only when converting all rules we get performance benefit. Partial converstion only makes things harder to debug and confuse users. > Netlink dump of such a fully-translated table would have the epbf > expression at the beginning of the first rule, exposing epbf program id/tag, > and a list of the nft rule IDs that it replaced. In the extreme (ideal) > case, it would thus list all rule handle IDs of the chain (including > those reachable via jump-to-user-defined-chains). > > Rest of dump would be as if ebpf did not exist, but these rules would > all be "dead" from packet-path point of view. They are linked from via > the nft epbf pseudo-expression, but no different from an arbitrary > cookie/comment. > > As explained above, this also needs kernel to track mapping of > n nft rules to m ebpf progs, rather than the simple 1:1 mapping done > in this RFC. > > The 1:1 mapping is not being set stone here, its just the inital > step to get the needed plumbing in, also see "Unresolved issues" > in cover letter above. > > So: > > Step 1: 1:1 mapping, an nft rule has at most one ebpf prog. > Step 2: figure out how to handle maps, sets, and how to cope with > not-yet-translateable expressions > Step 3: m:n mapping: kernel provides adjacent rules to the UMH for > jitting. Example: user appends rules a, b, c. UMH creates > single ebpf prog from a/b/c. > nft-pseudo-expression replaces a/b/c in the > packet path, original rules a/b/c are linked from the pseudo > expression for tracking. If user deletes rule b, we provide > a/c to UMH to create new epbf prog that replaces new > sequence a/c. > Step 4: always provide entire future base chain and all reachable chains > to the umh. Ideally all of it is replaced by single program. Right. I think the first implementation of converter should be translating all rules at once. Not necessarily all features, but all rules. Even if 60% of rules can be translated as bpf+trie there is not much benefit to do that and somehow mix and match the other 40% of old style iterative rule evaluation. Algorithms are too different. Iterative will be a drag on trie. > > Eventually, entire eval loop could be replaced by ebpf prog. > But it will need some time to get there -- at this point existing > nft expressions would no longer provide an ->eval() function. > > Does that make sense to you? > > If you see this as flawed, please let me know, but as I have no idea > how to resolve these issues going from 0 to 4 makes no sense to me. I think the challenge is how to implement 4 without doing step 1, right? imo doing such 1:1 (single rule to single bpf prog) translation does not help to break hard problem into smaller pieces. Such 1:1 is great for prototype, but not to land upstream. For the same reasons in bpfilter we did single iptable rule to single bpf prog translation, but such code doesn't belong in upstream tree, since it's not a scalable approach. It's too easy to follow that road, but it goes nowhere. Hence my proposal to invest time into building decision tree based algorithm coupled with pre- and post- bpf progs that supply 'key' into decision trie lookup and interpret the result. This way thousands of basic firewall rules will be translated in efficient way, but even tiny ruleset with complex features (like nat) won't be translated and that's ok. We can build on top algorithm that considers all rules at once, but not on top of translator that does one rule at a time. > > There are papers on scalable packet classification algorithms that > > use decision trees (hicuts, hypercuts, efficuts, etc) > > Imo that is the direction should we should be looking at. > > Okay, but without any idea how to consider existing expressions, > sets, maps etc. I'm not sure it makes sense to work on that at this > point. I think sets and ipset (in case of iptables) fit well into trie model. > We also have the second problem that the netfilter base hook infra > (NF_HOOK) already imposes indirect calls on us. > > Is there a plan to have a away to replace those indirect calls with > direct ones? We can't do that easily because most of the functions are > in modules, but AFAIU ebpf could rewrite that to a sequence of direct > calls. Yes. abundance of indirect calls is a separate, but equally important problem. We need to address both of them. > > [..] > > > imo this way majority of iptables/nft rules can be converted and > > performance will be great even with large rulesets. > > Oh, I do not doubt that multiple rules can be compiled into single program, > sorry if the RFC 1:1 mapping was confusing or gave that impression. I think bpfilter RFC also made folks believe that translating iptables rules one by one is what we're going to do as well. I hope this confusion is now resolved. The kernel doesn't need another sequential match firewall. -- 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
