"Brian G. Merrell" <brian.g.merrell@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 21/02/11 12:18PM, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: >> "Brian G. Merrell" <brian.g.merrell@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > One thing I have been a little concerned about is the XDP_RUN_CONFIG in >> > the xdp program function. For our case--with multiple teams writing >> > independent, composable xdp programs--we don't want the XDP_RUN_CONFIG >> > policy to be in the xdp program. Instead, we want the Go orchestration >> > tool to have that policy as part of its configuration data (e.g., what >> > order to run the xdp program functions in). From what I can tell, it's >> > possible to omit the XDP_RUN_CONFIG from the xdp program function, and >> > instead set the values when loading the xdp dispatcher. That's great, and >> > thanks for the foresight there. I just want to confirm that I'm >> > understanding that correctly, because it's very important for us. >> >> Yes. The values embedded into the program BTF are defaults, and can be >> overridden on load. The idea is that an application will set a default >> value (e.g., "I'm a firewall, so I want to run early" or "I want to >> monitor traffic to the stack so I'll run late"), but if the sysadmin >> wants to do things differently they can override the order. The >> important bit being that ultimate control of run order is up to the >> *user*, not the application developer. > > Great. In our case, it would be ideal if the application developer > doesn't even need to be aware of the XDP_RUN_CONFIG and can just omit > it. I guess for our implementation that would mean that we don't error > out if the BTF section doesn't exist, and instead we look to our > configuration data (more on that below) for the relevant information. That's also what libxdp does; if no XDP_RUN_CONFIG is found, it just uses the defaults (run prio 50 + chain call on XDP_PASS). >> The policy override stuff is not implemented yet, but I am planning to >> implement it by having libxdp read a config file with priority overrides >> (similar to how libc will read /etc/nsswitch.conf or /etc/hosts which >> makes them work in all applications). >> >> And of course, if you're writing an orchestration tool, then you *are* >> the user, so having the tool override priorities is definitely in scope >> (it'll just be an alternative way to set policy instead of a config >> file). How are you planning to specify the effective run order? I am >> also quite open to working on a compatible way that can work for both >> your tool and libxdp :) > > As part of our control plane we have a whole process for a sysadmin to > get config data to to our BPF orchestration tool, which is running on > multiple nodes. It very abstractly looks like this: > > > +---- Node 1 > | > UI -> API -> DATABASE -> CONFIG DATA +---- Node 2 > | > +---- Node N > > So, the sysadmin using the UI or API would dictate which xdp programs > run *and* what their priority is (plus anything else that would > otherwise go into XDP_RUN_CONFIG, plus a bunch of other config data for > various other needs). Then--and hopefully I'm getting this right--when > our (Go) orchestration tool uses (Go) libxdp, the tool needs a way to > set the run order for the XDP programs before the dispatcher loads. Yeah, and what I was interested in was how the orchestration tool gets this data (and the BPF programs themselves)? Is there a daemon running on the nodes that exposes an API? Are you pushing this via SSH/Ansible? Infinite monkeys with typewriters inputting data? Something else? :) > I was planning to set the run order programatically on the XDP program > objects via libxdp calls. It looks like your libxdp implementation > already has ways to do this in the form of xdp_program__set_run_prio() > and xdp_program__chain_call_enabled(). > > Does that make sense? This is still all very theoretical for me at this > point! Yup, totally possible to set this programmatically with libxdp as well today. However, before doing so you still need to communicate the list of BPF programs and their run configuration to each node. And I'm thinking it may be worthwhile to specify how to do this as part of the "protocol" and also teach libxdp about the format, so others won't have to reinvent the same thing later. The reason I went with the embedded BTF is that this gets compiled into the ELF file, and so we can be pretty sure that it doesn't get lost, without having to keep track of separate configuration files. So this makes it a good fit for BPF program authors specifying a default: they can be pretty sure that this will stay with the object code no matter how it's moved around. The downside of using BTF is of course the same: it's tightly coupled to the compiled binary, and it's a bit awkward to parse (and modify). So I always anticipated that a secondary format that was *decoupled* from the binary byte code format would be needed, just as you're describing. So I'm just looking for input on what such a format might reasonably look like :) >> > Also, I do hope that the existing Go BTF libraries are good enough to do >> > what's needed here, because if I'm understand correctly, that's how I'll >> > need to approach setting the XDP_RUN_CONFIG values for our use case. >> >> You'll need to *parse* BTF to *read* the XDP_RUN_CONFIG. Which is pretty >> basic, really, you just need to walk the BTF reference tree. Feel free >> to reuse the parsing code in libxdp; that is, in turn, adapted from the >> .maps section parsing code in libbpf :) > > OK, that makes sense. Since I want to keep our implementation purely > in Go (if possible), what I trying to say what that I hope there's an > existing Go library that can parse and read BTF (Cillium's Go eBPF > library looks promising). After thinking more about our orchestration > config data use case I was describing above, though, I don't think > reading XDP_RUN_CONFIG from BTF is strictly necessary for our use > case. See above re: my reasons for picking the BTF format. Not sure how you're developing the BPF programs, but it may turn out to be useful to have program authors specify defaults as well. E.g., you could have whatever process *inserts* programs into your database (assuming that's where you store the available programs) read default values from the BTF and pre-populate the admin UI with those when someone wants to load programs? > That said, it obviously would be preferable to conform to the > specification, plus it does look necessary to read the program IDs > from BTF anyway :) The program IDs are allocated by the kernel on load, so those have nothing to do with BTF. But you'll likely want to support BTF-defined maps, and the freplace functionality itself relies on BTF being present; so you'll need to handle it somehow... :) -Toke
|