Skip to content

L
linux
Switch branch/tag
  1. 03 Mar, 2015 1 commit
  3. 02 Mar, 2015 37 commits
  5. 01 Mar, 2015 2 commits
    • David S. Miller's avatar
      Merge branch 'ebpf_support_for_cls_bpf' · 68932f71
      David S. Miller authored 
      Daniel Borkmann says:

====================
eBPF support for cls_bpf

This is the non-RFC version of my patchset posted before netdev01 [1]
conference. It contains a couple of eBPF cleanups and preparation
patches to get eBPF support into cls_bpf. The last patch adds the
actual support. I'll post the iproute2 parts after the kernel bits
are merged, an initial preview link to the code is mentioned in the
last patch.

Patch 4 and 5 were originally one patch, but I've split them into
two parts upon request as patch 4 only is also needed for Alexei's
tracing patches that go via tip tree.

Tested with tc and all in-kernel available BPF test suites.

I have configured and built LLVM with --enable-experimental-targets=BPF
but as Alexei put it, the plan is to get rid of the experimental
status in future [2].

Thanks a lot!

v1 -> v2:
 - Removed arch patches from this series
  - x86 is already queued in tip tree, under x86/mm
  - arm64 just reposted directly to arm folks
 - Rest is unchanged

  [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/350191
  [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1874969
====================
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      68932f71
    • Daniel Borkmann's avatar
      cls_bpf: add initial eBPF support for programmable classifiers · e2e9b654
      Daniel Borkmann authored 
      This work extends the "classic" BPF programmable tc classifier by
extending its scope also to native eBPF code!

This allows for user space to implement own custom, 'safe' C like
classifiers (or whatever other frontend language LLVM et al may
provide in future), that can then be compiled with the LLVM eBPF
backend to an eBPF elf file. The result of this can be loaded into
the kernel via iproute2's tc. In the kernel, they can be JITed on
major archs and thus run in native performance.

Simple, minimal toy example to demonstrate the workflow:

  #include <linux/ip.h>
  #include <linux/if_ether.h>
  #include <linux/bpf.h>

  #include "tc_bpf_api.h"

  __section("classify")
  int cls_main(struct sk_buff *skb)
  {
    return (0x800 << 16) | load_byte(skb, ETH_HLEN + __builtin_offsetof(struct iphdr, tos));
  }

  char __license[] __section("license") = "GPL";

The classifier can then be compiled into eBPF opcodes and loaded
via tc, for example:

  clang -O2 -emit-llvm -c cls.c -o - | llc -march=bpf -filetype=obj -o cls.o
  tc filter add dev em1 parent 1: bpf cls.o [...]

As it has been demonstrated, the scope can even reach up to a fully
fledged flow dissector (similarly as in samples/bpf/sockex2_kern.c).

For tc, maps are allowed to be used, but from kernel context only,
in other words, eBPF code can keep state across filter invocations.
In future, we perhaps may reattach from a different application to
those maps e.g., to read out collected statistics/state.

Similarly as in socket filters, we may extend functionality for eBPF
classifiers over time depending on the use cases. For that purpose,
cls_bpf programs are using BPF_PROG_TYPE_SCHED_CLS program type, so
we can allow additional functions/accessors (e.g. an ABI compatible
offset translation to skb fields/metadata). For an initial cls_bpf
support, we allow the same set of helper functions as eBPF socket
filters, but we could diverge at some point in time w/o problem.

I was wondering whether cls_bpf and act_bpf could share C programs,
I can imagine that at some point, we introduce i) further common
handlers for both (or even beyond their scope), and/or if truly needed
ii) some restricted function space for each of them. Both can be
abstracted easily through struct bpf_verifier_ops in future.

The context of cls_bpf versus act_bpf is slightly different though:
a cls_bpf program will return a specific classid whereas act_bpf a
drop/non-drop return code, latter may also in future mangle skbs.
That said, we can surely have a "classify" and "action" section in
a single object file, or considered mentioned constraint add a
possibility of a shared section.

The workflow for getting native eBPF running from tc [1] is as
follows: for f_bpf, I've added a slightly modified ELF parser code
from Alexei's kernel sample, which reads out the LLVM compiled
object, sets up maps (and dynamically fixes up map fds) if any, and
loads the eBPF instructions all centrally through the bpf syscall.

The resulting fd from the loaded program itself is being passed down
to cls_bpf, which looks up struct bpf_prog from the fd store, and
holds reference, so that it stays available also after tc program
lifetime. On tc filter destruction, it will then drop its reference.

Moreover, I've also added the optional possibility to annotate an
eBPF filter with a name (e.g. path to object file, or something
else if preferred) so that when tc dumps currently installed filters,
some more context can be given to an admin for a given instance (as
opposed to just the file descriptor number).

Last but not least, bpf_prog_get() and bpf_prog_put() needed to be
exported, so that eBPF can be used from cls_bpf built as a module.
Thanks to 60a3b225 ("net: bpf: make eBPF interpreter images
read-only") I think this is of no concern since anything wanting to
alter eBPF opcode after verification stage would crash the kernel.

  [1] http://git.breakpoint.cc/cgit/dborkman/iproute2.git/log/?h=ebpfSigned-off-by: default avatarDaniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>
Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@mojatatu.com>
Cc: Jiri Pirko <jiri@resnulli.us>
Acked-by: default avatarAlexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
      e2e9b654
GitLab Nexedi Edition | About GitLab | About Nexedi | 沪ICP备2021021310号-2 | 沪ICP备2021021310号-7