Roopa Prabhu <ro...@cumulusnetworks.com> writes:
> On 7/21/16, 1:00 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Roopa Prabhu <ro...@cumulusnetworks.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 7/16/16, 11:24 AM, Magnus Bergroth wrote:
>>>> Wanted to use more than the default maximum of 8 mpls labels. Max labels
>>>> seems to be hardcode to 8 in two places.
>>>>
>>>> --- iproute2-4.6.0/lib/utils.c 2016-05-18 20:56:02.000000000 +0200
>>>> +++ iproute2-4.6.0-bergroth/lib/utils.c 2016-07-16 20:12:10.714958071
>>>> +0200
>>>> @@ -476,7 +476,7 @@
>>>> addr->bytelen = 4;
>>>> addr->bitlen = 20;
>>>> /* How many bytes do I need? */
>>>> - for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
>>>> + for (i = 0; i < MPLS_MAX_LABELS; i++) {
>>>> if (ntohl(addr->data[i]) & MPLS_LS_S_MASK) {
>>>> addr->bytelen = (i + 1)*4;
>>>> break;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- iproute2-4.6.0/include/utils.h 2016-05-18 20:56:02.000000000 +0200
>>>> +++ iproute2-4.6.0-bergroth/include/utils.h 2016-07-15
>>>> 11:55:57.297681742 +0200
>>>> @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@
>>>> #define NEXT_ARG_FWD() do { argv++; argc--; } while(0)
>>>> #define PREV_ARG() do { argv--; argc++; } while(0)
>>>>
>>>> +/* Maximum number of labels the mpls helpers support */
>>>> +#define MPLS_MAX_LABELS 8
>>>> +
>>>> typedef struct
>>>> {
>>>> __u16 flags;
>>>> @@ -61,7 +64,7 @@
>>>> __s16 bitlen;
>>>> /* These next two fields match rtvia */
>>>> __u16 family;
>>>> - __u32 data[8];
>>>> + __u32 data[MPLS_MAX_LABELS];
>>>> } inet_prefix;
>>>>
>> This structure is not MPLS specific so that is not appropriate to use
>> MPLS_MAX_LABELS when definiting the structure. Likewise changing this
>> structure and limiting the changes to mpls parts of the code is not
>> appropriate.
>>
>>>> #define PREFIXLEN_SPECIFIED 1
>>>> @@ -88,9 +91,6 @@
>>>> # define AF_MPLS 28
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> -/* Maximum number of labels the mpls helpers support */
>>>> -#define MPLS_MAX_LABELS 8
>>>> -
>>>> __u32 get_addr32(const char *name);
>>>> int get_addr_1(inet_prefix *dst, const char *arg, int family);
>>>> int get_prefix_1(inet_prefix *dst, char *arg, int family);
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I did not realize it is hardcoded to 8 in iproute2. Because kernel has a
>>> hard coded limit of
>>> 2.
>>> I think we need to fix it in a few places:
>>> a) we should move the kernel #define to a uapi header file which iproute2
>>> can use
>>> b) there has been a general ask to bump the kernel MAX_LABELS from 2 and I
>>> don't see
>>> a problem with it yet. so, we could bump it to 8.
>>>
>>> Were you planning to post patches for one or both of the above ?.
>>>
>>> I can post them too. Let me know.
>> a) I just looked and the kernel netlink protocol does not have a limit.
>> The kernel does have a limit but the netlink protocol does not so
>> there is no point in exporting a limit in a uapi header, it will
>> just be out of date and wrong.
> sure, if you have concerns about making it part of uapi, we can
> separately maintain the same limit in iproute2 and kernel.
The different tools already have different limits and it is not
a problem. The important thing is for the userspace tool to have
the larger limit.
>> b) I can see in principle bumping up the kernels MAX_LABELS past two
>> although I haven't heard those requests, or understand the use cases.
>> I don't recall seeing any ducumentation on cases where it is
>> desirable to push a lot of labels at once. (Do hardware
>> implementations support pushing a lot of labels at once?)
> I don't know of any use cases either. But i have received multiple requests
> on bumping the current limit of two
>>
>> Bumping past 8 seems quite a lot. That starts feeling like people
>> trying to break other peoples mpls stacks. That is asking for more
>> packet space for labels than ipv6 uses for addresses and ipv6 is way
>> oversized. The commonly agreed wisdom is the world only needs 40 to
>> 48 bits to route on to reach the entire world.
>>
>> I can completely understand a few specialty labels going beyond what
>> is needed for general purpose routing but pushing more that 8 at
>> once seems huge. Especially since you can recirculate packets if
>> you really need to and push more labels that way.
>
> I don't think there is an ask for going more than 8. anything greater than
> current 2 is good.
Except the patch that got all of this started.
>> Add to that for a software implementation we have these pesky things
>> called cache lines. I can see in the kernel pushing struct
>> mpls_route towards the size of a full cacheline. Today we are at 52
>> bytes not counting the via adress. With the via address we are at 56
>> (ipv4), 58 (ethernet), and 60 (ipv6) bytes. Which means in we have
>> to make the kernel data structures smarter or we risk messing up the
>> performance of the common case.
>>
>> Also we do need some kind of limit in the kernel to protect against
>> insane inputs.
>>
>> So while I can imagine there are reasonable cases for bumping up the
>> maximum number of labels in the kernel I think we need to be smart if
>> we ware going to do that. Which probably means we will want a
>> __mpls_nh_label helper function.
>>
> sure, yes, the current static label array works well for the common case
> of 2 labels. does it make sense for it to be configurable
> with the default being 2 and max something like 8 ?
We have two structures both with one byte holes:
struct mpls_route { /* next hop label forwarding entry */
struct rcu_head rt_rcu;
u8 rt_protocol;
u8 rt_payload_type;
u8 rt_max_alen;
unsigned int rt_nhn;
unsigned int rt_nhn_alive;
struct mpls_nh rt_nh[0];
};
struct mpls_nh { /* next hop label forwarding entry */
struct net_device __rcu *nh_dev;
unsigned int nh_flags;
u32 nh_label[MAX_NEW_LABELS];
u8 nh_labels;
u8 nh_via_alen;
u8 nh_via_table;
};
If we were to define them as:
struct mpls_route { /* next hop label forwarding entry */
struct rcu_head rt_rcu;
u8 rt_protocol;
u8 rt_payload_type;
u8 rt_max_alen;
u8 rt_max_labels;
unsigned int rt_nhn;
unsigned int rt_nhn_alive;
struct mpls_nh rt_nh[0];
};
struct mpls_nh { /* next hop label forwarding entry */
struct net_device __rcu *nh_dev;
unsigned int nh_flags;
u8 nh_labels;
u8 nh_via_alen;
u8 nh_via_table;
};
static 32 *__mpls_nh_labels(struct mpls_route *rt, struct mpls_nh *nh)
{
u32 *nh0_labels = PTR_ALIGN((u32 *)&rt->rt_nh[rt->rt_nhn], sizeof(u32));
int nh_index = nh - rt->rt_nh;
return nh0_labels + rt->rt_max_labels * nh_index;
}
static u8 *__mpls_nh_via(struct mpls_route *rt, struct mpls_nh *nh)
{
u8 *nh0_via = PTR_ALIGN((u8 *)(&rt->rt_nh[rt->rt_nhn] + (sizeof(u32)
*rt->max_labels * rt->nhn)), VIA_ALEN_ALIGN);
int nh_index = nh - rt->rt_nh;
return nh0_via + rt->rt_max_alen * nh_index;
}
Ugh. I just noticed we have a nasty 4 byte gap in the mpls_route by
having both rt_nhn and rt_nhn_alive in there. As rt_nh[0] has pointer
alignment.
Anyway something like the above should allow us to remove the limit
of the number of labels from the implementation and still fit everything
in a cache line in the common case, as the change above doesn't take up
any extra space in struct mpls_route.
Then we just pick a reasonable maximum and set MAX_NEW_LABELS to that.
That will change struct mpls_route_config. So we need a small enough
value that putting struct mpls_route_config continues to make sense.
I propose 8 for MAX_NEW_LABELS after such a change.
It looks pretty straighforward on the kernel side.
Eric
