Hi David, On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 09:44:51AM -0500, David Miller wrote: > I see talk about "just replacing the iptables binary". > > A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, that would be a reasonable > scheme. But that kind of approach won't work in the realities of > today. > > You aren't going to be able to replace the iptables binary in the tens > of thousands of container images out there, nor the virtualization > installations either.
I appear to have been under the impression that the entire movement to DevOps and automatic provisioning of containers/nodes/pods/Vms with puppet, ansible, Dockerfiles & Co is to be *more* agile in deployments, rather than less. If you cannot even rebuild your thousands of container images with updated binaries, then what is this all worth? You need to be able to update the iptables (or any other) binary in case there's an important (security or otherwise) bug that needs fixing. I don't see this any different. Also, as long as legacy ip_tables/x_tables is still in the kernel, you can still run your old userspace against that old implementation in the kernel. Nobody forces you to use anything else [for another decade or so]. Just if you want to take advantage of new more modular/performant/... things like nftables or an eBPF backend, then you would have to go that extra mile. I don't think the kernel (network) developers should burden themselves with too many things. There's sufficient on their plate as-is. So * if there's some new system (nftables, bpfilter, ...) * and some documented migration paths for the vast majority of the use cases (replacing iptables binaries with a compat wrapper) * and the old system continues to work as-is (x_tables kernel code stays for several more years) Then people who care about the new features or performance will migrate to the new system. And those who don't care stay with the old system - which is not a problem as they clearly wouldn't need the new system anyway. > Like it or not iptables ABI based filtering is going to be in the data > path for many years if not a decade or more to come. I beg to differ. For some people, yes. but then, as Florian points out, they can just as well use the existing x_tables kernel code. If they want something better, they can either replace their iptables program with xtables-compat from nftables, or whatever else might exist for eBPF support. > iptables is a victim of it's own success, like it or not :-) Yes, the > ABI is terrible, but obviously it was useful enough for lots of > people. and it continues to do so. I just don't think it is a great idea to kludge any new packet filter against such an arcane uapi. > Therefore it behooves us to accept this reality and align the data > path generated to match what the rest of the kernel is moving towards > and that is eBPF and XDP. This argument is unrelated to the question of the uapi. I'm not arguing against an eBPF backend/implementation for packet filtering. It's more a question of _how_. > Furthrmore, on a long term maintainence perspective, it means that > every data path used by the kernel for iptables will be fully verified > by the eBPF verifier. This means that the iptables data path will be > guaranteed to never get into a loop, access out of bounds data, etc. > > That to me is real power, and something we should pursue. Once again, both not related to the question of the uapi. > I know you can't see how offloading is possible, but I hope > are some further discussion you can see how that might work. I'm looking forward to that point. Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte <lafo...@gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html