On 4/16/21 12:22 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:10 PM Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net wrote:
On 4/15/21 1:58 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:32 PM Daniel Borkmann daniel@iogearbox.net wrote:
On 4/15/21 1:19 AM, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:51 PM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen toke@redhat.com wrote:
Andrii Nakryiko andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com writes: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 3:58 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen toke@redhat.com wrote: >> Andrii Nakryiko andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com writes: >>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 3:06 AM Toke Høiland-Jørgensen toke@redhat.com wrote: >>>> Andrii Nakryiko andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com writes: >>>>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:47 AM Alexei Starovoitov >>>>> alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:38:06AM +0530, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: >>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 12:02:14AM IST, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 8:27 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi memxor@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All of these things are messy because of tc legacy. bpf tried to follow tc style >>>>>>>> with cls and act distinction and it didn't quite work. cls with >>>>>>>> direct-action is the only >>>>>>>> thing that became mainstream while tc style attach wasn't really addressed. >>>>>>>> There were several incidents where tc had tens of thousands of progs attached >>>>>>>> because of this attach/query/index weirdness described above. >>>>>>>> I think the only way to address this properly is to introduce bpf_link style of >>>>>>>> attaching to tc. Such bpf_link would support ingress/egress only. >>>>>>>> direction-action will be implied. There won't be any index and query >>>>>>>> will be obvious. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Note that we already have bpf_link support working (without support for pinning >>>>>>> ofcourse) in a limited way. The ifindex, protocol, parent_id, priority, handle, >>>>>>> chain_index tuple uniquely identifies a filter, so we stash this in the bpf_link >>>>>>> and are able to operate on the exact filter during release. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except they're not unique. The library can stash them, but something else >>>>>> doing detach via iproute2 or their own netlink calls will detach the prog. >>>>>> This other app can attach to the same spot a different prog and now >>>>>> bpf_link__destroy will be detaching somebody else prog. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I would like to propose to take this patch set a step further from >>>>>>>> what Daniel said: >>>>>>>> int bpf_tc_attach(prog_fd, ifindex, {INGRESS,EGRESS}): >>>>>>>> and make this proposed api to return FD. >>>>>>>> To detach from tc ingress/egress just close(fd). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You mean adding an fd-based TC API to the kernel? >>>>>> >>>>>> yes. >>>>> >>>>> I'm totally for bpf_link-based TC attachment. >>>>> >>>>> But I think *also* having "legacy" netlink-based APIs will allow >>>>> applications to handle older kernels in a much nicer way without extra >>>>> dependency on iproute2. We have a similar situation with kprobe, where >>>>> currently libbpf only supports "modern" fd-based attachment, but users >>>>> periodically ask questions and struggle to figure out issues on older >>>>> kernels that don't support new APIs. >>>> >>>> +1; I am OK with adding a new bpf_link-based way to attach TC programs, >>>> but we still need to support the netlink API in libbpf. >>>> >>>>> So I think we'd have to support legacy TC APIs, but I agree with >>>>> Alexei and Daniel that we should keep it to the simplest and most >>>>> straightforward API of supporting direction-action attachments and >>>>> setting up qdisc transparently (if I'm getting all the terminology >>>>> right, after reading Quentin's blog post). That coincidentally should >>>>> probably match how bpf_link-based TC API will look like, so all that >>>>> can be abstracted behind a single bpf_link__attach_tc() API as well, >>>>> right? That's the plan for dealing with kprobe right now, btw. Libbpf >>>>> will detect the best available API and transparently fall back (maybe >>>>> with some warning for awareness, due to inherent downsides of legacy >>>>> APIs: no auto-cleanup being the most prominent one). >>>> >>>> Yup, SGTM: Expose both in the low-level API (in bpf.c), and make the >>>> high-level API auto-detect. That way users can also still use the >>>> netlink attach function if they don't want the fd-based auto-close >>>> behaviour of bpf_link. >>> >>> So I thought a bit more about this, and it feels like the right move >>> would be to expose only higher-level TC BPF API behind bpf_link. It >>> will keep the API complexity and amount of APIs that libbpf will have >>> to support to the minimum, and will keep the API itself simple: >>> direct-attach with the minimum amount of input arguments. By not >>> exposing low-level APIs we also table the whole bpf_tc_cls_attach_id >>> design discussion, as we now can keep as much info as needed inside >>> bpf_link_tc (which will embed bpf_link internally as well) to support >>> detachment and possibly some additional querying, if needed. >> >> But then there would be no way for the caller to explicitly select a >> mechanism? I.e., if I write a BPF program using this mechanism targeting >> a 5.12 kernel, I'll get netlink attachment, which can stick around when >> I do bpf_link__disconnect(). But then if the kernel gets upgraded to >> support bpf_link for TC programs I'll suddenly transparently get >> bpf_link and the attachments will go away unless I pin them. This >> seems... less than ideal? > > That's what we are doing with bpf_program__attach_kprobe(), though. > And so far I've only seen people (privately) saying how good it would > be to have bpf_link-based TC APIs, doesn't seem like anyone with a > realistic use case prefers the current APIs. So I suspect it's not > going to be a problem in practice. But at least I'd start there and > see how people are using it and if they need anything else.
*sigh* - I really wish you would stop arbitrarily declaring your own use cases "realistic" and mine (implied) "unrealistic". Makes it really hard to have a productive discussion...
Well (sigh?..), this wasn't my intention, sorry you read it this way. But we had similar discussions when I was adding bpf_link-based XDP attach APIs. And guess what, now I see that samples/bpf/whatever_xdp is switched to bpf_link-based XDP, because that makes everything simpler and more reliable. What I also know is that in production we ran into multiple issues with anything that doesn't auto-detach on process exit/crash (unless pinned explicitly, of course). And that people that are trying to use TC right now are saying how having bpf_link-based TC APIs would make everything *simpler* and *safer*. So I don't know... I understand it might be convenient in some cases to not care about a lifetime of BPF programs you are attaching, but then there are usually explicit and intentional ways to achieve at least similar behavior with safety by default.
[...]
> There are many ways to skin this cat. I'd prioritize bpf_link-based TC > APIs to be added with legacy TC API as a fallback.
I think the problem here is though that this would need to be deterministic when upgrading from one kernel version to another where we don't use the fallback anymore, e.g. in case of Cilium we always want to keep the progs attached to allow headless updates on the agent, meaning, traffic keeps flowing through the BPF datapath while in user space, our agent restarts after upgrade, and atomically replaces the BPF progs once up and running (we're doing this for the whole range of 4.9 to 5.x kernels that we support). While we use the 'simple' api that is discussed here internally in Cilium, this attach behavior would have to be consistent, so transparent fallback inside libbpf on link vs non-link availability won't work (at least in our case).
What about pinning? It's not exactly the same, but bpf_link could actually pin a BPF program, if using legacy TC, and pin bpf_link, if using bpf_link-based APIs. Of course before switching from iproute2 to libbpf APIs you'd need to design your applications to use pinning instead of relying implicitly on permanently attached BPF program.
All the progs we load from Cilium in a K8s setting w/ Pods, we could have easily over 100 loaded at the same time on a node, and we template the per Pod ones, so the complexity of managing those pinned lifecycles from the agent and dealing with the semantic/fallback differences between kernels feels probably not worth the gain. So if there would be a libbpf tc simplified attach API, I'd for the time being stick to the existing aka legacy means.
Sure. Then what do you think about keeping only low-level TC APIs, and in the future add bpf_program__attach_tc(), which will use bpf_link-based one. It seems like it's not worth it to pretend we have bpf_link-based semantics with "legacy" current TC APIs. Similarly how we have a low-level XDP attach API, and bpf_link-based (only) bpf_program__attach_xdp().
I think that's okay. I guess question is what do we define as initial scope for the low-level TC API. cls_bpf w/ fixed direct-action mode + fixed eth_p_all, allowing to flexibly specify handle / priority or a block_index feels reasonable.