@@ -172,6 +172,41 @@ static int tcp_msg_wait_data(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock,
return ret;
}
+static int tcp_bpf_recvmsg_parser(struct sock *sk,
+ struct msghdr *msg,
+ size_t len,
+ int nonblock,
+ int flags,
+ int *addr_len)
+{
+ struct sk_psock *psock;
+ int copied;
+
+ if (unlikely(flags & MSG_ERRQUEUE))
+ return inet_recv_error(sk, msg, len, addr_len);
+
+ psock = sk_psock_get(sk);
+ if (unlikely(!psock))
+ return tcp_recvmsg(sk, msg, len, nonblock, flags, addr_len);
+
+ lock_sock(sk);
+msg_bytes_ready:
+ copied = sk_msg_recvmsg(sk, psock, msg, len, flags);
+ if (!copied) {
+ long timeo;
+ int data;
+
+ timeo = sock_rcvtimeo(sk, nonblock);
+ data = tcp_msg_wait_data(sk, psock, timeo);
+ if (data && !sk_psock_queue_empty(psock))
+ goto msg_bytes_ready;
+ copied = -EAGAIN;
+ }
+ release_sock(sk);
+ sk_psock_put(sk, psock);
+ return copied;
+}
+
static int tcp_bpf_recvmsg(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, size_t len,
int nonblock, int flags, int *addr_len)
{
@@ -464,6 +499,8 @@ enum {
enum {
TCP_BPF_BASE,
TCP_BPF_TX,
+ TCP_BPF_RX,
+ TCP_BPF_TXRX,
TCP_BPF_NUM_CFGS,
};
@@ -482,6 +519,12 @@ static void tcp_bpf_rebuild_protos(struct proto prot[TCP_BPF_NUM_CFGS],
prot[TCP_BPF_TX] = prot[TCP_BPF_BASE];
prot[TCP_BPF_TX].sendmsg = tcp_bpf_sendmsg;
prot[TCP_BPF_TX].sendpage = tcp_bpf_sendpage;
+
+ prot[TCP_BPF_RX] = prot[TCP_BPF_BASE];
+ prot[TCP_BPF_RX].recvmsg = tcp_bpf_recvmsg_parser;
+
+ prot[TCP_BPF_TXRX] = prot[TCP_BPF_TX];
+ prot[TCP_BPF_TXRX].recvmsg = tcp_bpf_recvmsg_parser;
}
static void tcp_bpf_check_v6_needs_rebuild(struct proto *ops)
@@ -519,6 +562,10 @@ int tcp_bpf_update_proto(struct sock *sk, struct sk_psock *psock, bool restore)
int family = sk->sk_family == AF_INET6 ? TCP_BPF_IPV6 : TCP_BPF_IPV4;
int config = psock->progs.msg_parser ? TCP_BPF_TX : TCP_BPF_BASE;
+ if (psock->progs.stream_verdict || psock->progs.skb_verdict) {
+ config = (config == TCP_BPF_TX) ? TCP_BPF_TXRX : TCP_BPF_RX;
+ }
+
if (restore) {
if (inet_csk_has_ulp(sk)) {
/* TLS does not have an unhash proto in SW cases,
A socket in a sockmap may have different combinations of programs attached depending on configuration. There can be no programs in which case the socket acts as a sink only. There can be a TX program in this case a BPF program is attached to sending side, but no RX program is attached. There can be an RX program only where sends have no BPF program attached, but receives are hooked with BPF. And finally, both TX and RX programs may be attached. Giving us the permutations, None, Tx, Rx, and TxRx To date most of our use cases have been TX case being used as a fast datapath to directly copy between local application and a userspace proxy. Or Rx cases and TxRX applications that are operating an in kernel based proxy. The traffic in the first case where we hook applications into a userspace application looks like this, AppA redirect AppB Tx <-----------> Rx | | + + TCP <--> lo <--> TCP In this case all traffic from AppA (after 3whs) is copied into the AppB ingress queue and no traffic is ever on the TCP recieive_queue. In the second case the application never receives, except in some rare error cases, traffic on the actual user space socket. Instead the send happens in the kernel. AppProxy socket pool sk0 ------------->{sk1,sk2, skn} ^ | | | | v ingress lb egress TCP TCP Here because traffic is never read off the socket with userspace recv() APIs there is only ever one reader on the sk receive_queue. Namely the BPF programs. However, we've started to introduce a third configuration where the BPF program on receive should process the data, but then the normal case is to push the data into the receive queue of AppB. AppB recv() (userspace) ----------------------- tcp_bpf_recvmsg() (kernel) | | | | | | ingress_msgQ | | | RX_BPF | | | v v sk->receive_queue This is different from the App{A,B} redirect because traffic is first received on the sk->receive_queue. Now for the issue. The tcp_bpf_recvmsg() handler first checks the ingress_msg queue for any data handled by the BPF rx program and returned with PASS code so that it was enqueued on the ingress msg queue. Then if no data exists on that queue it checks the socket receive queue. Unfortunately, this is the same receive_queue the BPF program is reading data off of. So we get a race. Its possible for the recvmsg() hook to pull data off the receive_queue before the BPF hook has a chance to read it. It typically happens when an application is banging on recv() and getting EAGAINs. Until they manage to race with the RX BPF program. To fix this we note that before this patch at attach time when the socket is loaded into the map we check if it needs a TX program or just the base set of proto bpf hooks. Then it uses the above general RX hook regardless of if we have a BPF program attached at rx or not. This patch now extends this check to handle all cases enumerated above, TX, RX, TXRX, and none. And to fix above race when an RX program is attached we use a new hook that is nearly identical to the old one except now we do not let the recv() call skip the RX BPF program. Now only the BPF program pulls data from sk->receive_queue and recv() only pulls data from the ingress msgQ post BPF program handling. With this resolved our AppB from above has been up and running for many hours without detecting any errors. We do this by correlating counters in RX BPF events and the AppB to ensure data is never skipping the BPF program. Selftests, was not able to detect this because we only run them for a short period of time on well ordered send/recvs so we don't get any of the noise we see in real application environments. Fixes: 51199405f9672 ("bpf: skb_verdict, support SK_PASS on RX BPF path") Tested-by: Jussi Maki <joamaki@gmail.com> Acked-by: Jakub Sitnicki <jakub@cloudflare.com> Signed-off-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> --- net/ipv4/tcp_bpf.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+)