On 11 May 2018 at 14:41, Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 02:08:01PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote:
>> On 10 May 2018 at 22:00, Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:07:05PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote:
>> >> This patch adds a new BPF helper function, sk_lookup() which allows BPF
>> >> programs to find out if there is a socket listening on this host, and
>> >> returns a socket pointer which the BPF program can then access to
>> >> determine, for instance, whether to forward or drop traffic. sk_lookup()
>> >> takes a reference on the socket, so when a BPF program makes use of this
>> >> function, it must subsequently pass the returned pointer into the newly
>> >> added sk_release() to return the reference.
>> >>
>> >> By way of example, the following pseudocode would filter inbound
>> >> connections at XDP if there is no corresponding service listening for
>> >> the traffic:
>> >>
>> >> struct bpf_sock_tuple tuple;
>> >> struct bpf_sock_ops *sk;
>> >>
>> >> populate_tuple(ctx, &tuple); // Extract the 5tuple from the packet
>> >> sk = bpf_sk_lookup(ctx, &tuple, sizeof tuple, netns, 0);
>> >> if (!sk) {
>> >> // Couldn't find a socket listening for this traffic. Drop.
>> >> return TC_ACT_SHOT;
>> >> }
>> >> bpf_sk_release(sk, 0);
>> >> return TC_ACT_OK;
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Joe Stringer <j...@wand.net.nz>
>> >> ---
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >> @@ -4032,6 +4036,96 @@ static const struct bpf_func_proto
>> >> bpf_skb_get_xfrm_state_proto = {
>> >> };
>> >> #endif
>> >>
>> >> +struct sock *
>> >> +sk_lookup(struct net *net, struct bpf_sock_tuple *tuple) {
>> > Would it be possible to have another version that
>> > returns a sk without taking its refcnt?
>> > It may have performance benefit.
>>
>> Not really. The sockets are not RCU-protected, and established sockets
>> may be torn down without notice. If we don't take a reference, there's
>> no guarantee that the socket will continue to exist for the duration
>> of running the BPF program.
>>
>> From what I follow, the comment below has a hidden implication which
>> is that sockets without SOCK_RCU_FREE, eg established sockets, may be
>> directly freed regardless of RCU.
> Right, SOCK_RCU_FREE sk is the one I am concern about.
> For example, TCP_LISTEN socket does not require taking a refcnt
> now. Doing a bpf_sk_lookup() may have a rather big
> impact on handling TCP syn flood. or the usual intention
> is to redirect instead of passing it up to the stack?
I see, if you're only interested in listen sockets then probably this
series could be extended with a new flag, eg something like
BPF_F_SK_FIND_LISTENERS which restricts the set of possible sockets
found to only listen sockets, then the implementation would call into
__inet_lookup_listener() instead of inet_lookup(). The presence of
that flag in the relevant register during CALL instruction would show
that the verifier should not reference-track the result, then there'd
need to be a check on the release to ensure that this unreferenced
socket is never released. Just a thought, completely untested and I
could still be missing some detail..
That said, I don't completely follow how you would expect to handle
the traffic for sockets that are already established - the helper
would no longer find those sockets, so you wouldn't know whether to
pass the traffic up the stack for established traffic or not.
