net: xdp: account for layer 3 packets in generic skb handlerjd/xdp-l3

A user reported that packets from wireguard were possibly ignored by XDP
[1]. Another user reported that modifying packets from layer 3
interfaces results in impossible to diagnose drops.

Apparently, the generic skb xdp handler path seems to assume that
packets will always have an ethernet header, which really isn't always
the case for layer 3 packets, which are produced by multiple drivers.
This patch fixes the oversight. If the mac_len is 0 and so is
hard_header_len, then we know that the skb is a layer 3 packet, and in
that case prepend a pseudo ethhdr to the packet whose h_proto is copied
from skb->protocol, which will have the appropriate v4 or v6 ethertype.
This allows us to keep XDP programs' assumption correct about packets
always having that ethernet header, so that existing code doesn't break,
while still allowing layer 3 devices to use the generic XDP handler.

We push on the ethernet header and then pull it right off and set
mac_len to the ethernet header size, so that the rest of the XDP code
does not need any changes. That is, it makes it so that the skb has its
ethernet header just before the data pointer, of size ETH_HLEN.

Previous discussions have included the point that maybe XDP should just
be intentionally broken on layer 3 interfaces, by design, and that layer
3 people should be using cls_bpf. However, I think there are good
grounds to reconsider this perspective:

- Complicated deployments wind up applying XDP modifications to a
  variety of different devices on a given host, some of which are using
  specialized ethernet cards and other ones using virtual layer 3
  interfaces, such as WireGuard. Being able to apply one codebase to
  each of these winds up being essential.

- cls_bpf does not support the same feature set as XDP, and operates at
  a slightly different stage in the networking stack. You may reply,
  "then add all the features you want to cls_bpf", but that seems to be
  missing the point, and would still result in there being two ways to
  do everything, which is not desirable for anyone actually _using_ this
  code.

- While XDP was originally made for hardware offloading, and while many
  look disdainfully upon the generic mode, it nevertheless remains a
  highly useful and popular way of adding bespoke packet
  transformations, and from that perspective, a difference between layer
  2 and layer 3 packets is immaterial if the user is primarily concerned
  with transformations to layer 3 and beyond.

- It's not impossible to imagine layer 3 hardware (e.g. a WireGuard PCIe
  card) including eBPF/XDP functionality built-in. In that case, why
  limit XDP as a technology to only layer 2? Then, having generic XDP
  work for layer 3 would naturally fit as well.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/wireguard/[email protected]/

Reported-by: Thomas Ptacek <[email protected]>
Reported-by: Adhipati Blambangan <[email protected]>
Cc: David Ahern <[email protected]>
Cc: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <[email protected]>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <[email protected]>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <[email protected]>
Cc: John Fastabend <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]>
Cc: David S. Miller <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Jason A. Donenfeld <[email protected]>

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions