Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/2] bpf: add csum/ip_summed fields to __sk_buff

[Yonghong Song]

On 1/2/24 6:54 PM, Menglong Dong wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2024 at 8:52 AM Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 1/2/24 10:11 AM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > On 12/29, Menglong Dong wrote:
> > > > For now, we have to call some helpers when we need to update the csum,
> > > > such as bpf_l4_csum_replace, bpf_l3_csum_replace, etc. These helpers are
> > > > not inlined, which causes poor performance.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, we can define our own csum update functions in BPF program
> > > > instead of bpf_l3_csum_replace, which is totally inlined and efficient.
> > > > However, we can't do this for bpf_l4_csum_replace for now, as we can't
> > > > update skb->csum, which can cause skb->csum invalid in the rx path with
> > > > CHECKSUM_COMPLETE mode.
> > > >
> > > > What's more, we can't use the direct data access and have to use
> > > > skb_store_bytes() with the BPF_F_RECOMPUTE_CSUM flag in some case, such
> > > > as modifing the vni in the vxlan header and the underlay udp header has
> > > > no checksum.
> > There is bpf_csum_update(), does it work?
> > A helper call should be acceptable comparing with the csum calculation itself.
> Yeah, this helper works in this case! Now we miss the last
> piece for the tx path: ip_summed. We need to know if it is
> CHECKSUM_PARTIAL to decide if we should update the
> csum in the packet. In the tx path, the csum in the L4 is the
> pseudo header only if skb->ip_summed is CHECKSUM_PARTIAL.
>
> Maybe we can introduce a lightweight kfunc to get its
> value? Such as bpf_skb_csum_mode(). As we need only call
> it once, there shouldn't be overhead on it.

You don't need kfunc, you can do checking like
  struct sk_buff *kskb = bpf_cast_to_kern_ctx(skb);
  if (kskb->ip_summed == CHECKSUM_PARTIAL) ...
  ...
  

> Thanks!
> Menglong Dong
>
> > > > In the first patch, we make skb->csum readable and writable, and we make
> > > > skb->ip_summed readable. For now, for tc only. With these 2 fields, we
> > > > don't need to call bpf helpers for csum update any more.
> > > >
> > > > In the second patch, we add some testcases for the read/write testing for
> > > > skb->csum and skb->ip_summed.
> > > >
> > > > If this series is acceptable, we can define the inlined functions for csum
> > > > update in libbpf in the next step.
> > > One downside of exposing those as __sk_buff fields is that all this
> > > skb internal csum stuff now becomes a UAPI. And I'm not sure we want
> > +1. Please no new __sk_buff extension and no new conversion in
> > bpf_convert_ctx_access().
> >
> > > that :-) Should we add a lightweight kfunc to reset the fields instead?
> > > Or will it still have an unacceptable overhead?