[xdp-hints] Re: [RFC bpf-next v2 06/14] xdp: Carry over xdp metadata into skb context

["Toke Høiland-Jørgensen" <toke@redhat.com>]

Skipping to the last bit:

>> >> >    } else {
>> >> >      use kfuncs
>> >> >    }
>> >> >
>> >> > 5. Support the case where we keep program's metadata and kernel's
>> >> > xdp_to_skb_metadata
>> >> >    - skb_metadata_import_from_xdp() will "consume" it by mem-moving the
>> >> > rest of the metadata over it and adjusting the headroom
>> >>
>> >> I was thinking the kernel's xdp_to_skb_metadata is always before the program's
>> >> metadata.  xdp prog should usually work in this order also: read/write headers,
>> >> write its own metadata, call bpf_xdp_metadata_export_to_skb(), and return
>> >> XDP_PASS/XDP_REDIRECT.  When it is XDP_PASS, the kernel just needs to pop the
>> >> xdp_to_skb_metadata and pass the remaining program's metadata to the bpf-tc.
>> >>
>> >> For the kernel and xdp prog, I don't think it matters where the
>> >> xdp_to_skb_metadata is.  However, the xdp->data_meta (program's metadata) has to
>> >> be before xdp->data because of the current data_meta and data comparison usage
>> >> in the xdp prog.
>> >>
>> >> The order of the kernel's xdp_to_skb_metadata and the program's metadata
>> >> probably only matters to the userspace AF_XDP.  However, I don't see how AF_XDP
>> >> supports the program's metadata now.  afaict, it can only work now if there is
>> >> some sort of contract between them or the AF_XDP currently does not use the
>> >> program's metadata.  Either way, we can do the mem-moving only for AF_XDP and it
>> >> should be a no op if there is no program's metadata?  This behavior could also
>> >> be configurable through setsockopt?
>> >
>> > Agreed on all of the above. For now it seems like the safest thing to
>> > do is to put xdp_to_skb_metadata last to allow af_xdp to properly
>> > locate btf_id.
>> > Let's see if Toke disagrees :-)
>>
>> As I replied to Martin, I'm not sure it's worth the complexity to
>> logically split the SKB metadata from the program's own metadata (as
>> opposed to just reusing the existing data_meta pointer)?
>
> I'd gladly keep my current requirement where it's either or, but not both :-)
> We can relax it later if required?

So the way I've been thinking about it is simply that the skb_metadata
would live in the same place at the data_meta pointer (including
adjusting that pointer to accommodate it), and just overriding the
existing program metadata, if any exists. But looking at it now, I guess
having the split makes it easier for a program to write its own custom
metadata and still use the skb metadata. See below about the ordering.

>> However, if we do, the layout that makes most sense to me is putting the
>> skb metadata before the program metadata, like:
>>
>> --------------
>> | skb_metadata
>> --------------
>> | data_meta
>> --------------
>> | data
>> --------------
>>
>> Not sure if that's what you meant? :)
>
> I was suggesting the other way around: |custom meta|skb_metadata|data|
> (but, as Martin points out, consuming skb_metadata in the kernel
> becomes messier)
>
> af_xdp can check whether skb_metdata is present by looking at data -
> offsetof(struct skb_metadata, btf_id).
> progs that know how to handle custom metadata, will look at data -
> sizeof(skb_metadata)
>
> Otherwise, if it's the other way around, how do we find skb_metadata
> in a redirected frame?
> Let's say we have |skb_metadata|custom meta|data|, how does the final
> program find skb_metadata?
> All the progs have to agree on the sizeof(tc/custom meta), right?

Erm, maybe I'm missing something here, but skb_metadata is fixed size,
right? So if the "skb_metadata is present" flag is set, we know that the
sizeof(skb_metadata) bytes before the data_meta pointer contains the
metadata, and if the flag is not set, we know those bytes are not valid
metadata.

For AF_XDP, we'd need to transfer the flag as well, and it could apply
the same logic (getting the size from the vmlinux BTF).

By this logic, the BTF_ID should be the *first* entry of struct
skb_metadata, since that will be the field AF_XDP programs can find
right off the bat, no?

-Toke