Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 00/16] bpfilter

[Quentin Deslandes]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 04:17:28AM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Quentin Deslandes <qde@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Le 03/01/2023 à 12:45, Florian Westphal a écrit :
> > > You can't make this atomic from userspace perspective, the
> > > get/setsockopt API of iptables uses a read-modify-write model.
> > 
> > This refers to updating the programs from bpfilter's side. It won't
> > be atomic from iptables point of view, but currently bpfilter will
> > remove the program associated to a table, before installing the new
> > one. This means packets received in between those operations are
> > not filtered. I assume a better solution is possible.
> 
> Ah, I see, thanks.
> 
> > > Tentatively I'd try to extend libnftnl and generate bpf code there,
> > > since its used by both iptables(-nft) and nftables we'd automatically
> > > get support for both.
> > 
> > That's one of the option, this could also remain in the kernel
> > tree or in a dedicated git repository. I don't know which one would
> > be the best, I'm open to suggestions.
> 
> I can imagine that this will see a flurry of activity in the early
> phase so I think a 'semi test repo' makes sense.
> 
> Provideded license allows this, useable bits and pieces can then
> be grafted on to libnftnl (or iptables or whatever).
> 
> > > I was planning to look into "attach bpf progs to raw netfilter hooks"
> > > in Q1 2023, once the initial nf-bpf-codegen is merged.
> > 
> > Is there any plan to support non raw hooks? That's mainly out
> > of curiosity, I don't even know whether that would be a good thing
> > or not.
> 
> Not sure what 'non raw hook' is.  Idea was to expose
> 
> 1. protcocol family
> 2. hook number (prerouting, input etc)
> 3. priority
> 
> to userspace via bpf syscall/bpf link.
> 
> userspace would then provide the above info to kernel via
> bpf(... BPF_LINK_CREATE )
> 
> which would then end up doing:
> --------------
> h.hook = nf_hook_run_bpf; // wrapper to call BPF_PROG_RUN
> h.priv = prog; // the bpf program to run
> h.pf = attr->netfilter.pf;
> h.priority = attr->netfilter.priority;
> h.hooknum = attr->netfilter.hooknum;
> 
> nf_register_net_hook(net, &h);
> --------------
> 
> After that nf_hook_slow() calls the bpf program just like any
> other of the netfilter hooks.
> 
> Does that make sense or did you have something else in mind?

Sounds good to me. I thought you were referring to hooks available for
the RAW table (as in `iptables --table raw...`).

Thanks,
Quentin