On 1/14/2021 3:02 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:27:04AM +0200, Oz Shlomo wrote:
On 1/12/2021 1:51 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 09:52:55AM +0200, Roi Dayan wrote:
On 2021-01-10 9:45 AM, Roi Dayan wrote:
On 2021-01-08 11:48 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 09:30:47PM -0800, Saeed Mahameed wrote:
From: Roi Dayan <r...@nvidia.com>
Connection tracking associates the connection state per packet. The
first packet of a connection is assigned with the +trk+new state. The
connection enters the established state once a packet is seen on the
other direction.
Currently we offload only the established flows. However, UDP traffic
using source port entropy (e.g. vxlan, RoCE) will never enter the
established state. Such protocols do not require stateful processing,
and therefore could be offloaded.
If it doesn't require stateful processing, please enlight me on why
conntrack is being used in the first place. What's the use case here?
The use case for example is when we have vxlan traffic but we do
conntrack on the inner packet (rules on the physical port) so
we never get established but on miss we can still offload as normal
vxlan traffic.
my mistake about "inner packet". we do CT on the underlay network, i.e.
the outer header.
I miss why the CT match is being used there then. Isn't it a config
issue/waste of resources? What is CT adding to the matches/actions
being done on these flows?
Consider a use case where the network port receives both east-west
encapsulated traffic and north-south non-encapsulated traffic that requires
NAT.
One possible configuration is to first apply the CT-NAT action.
Established north-south connections will successfully execute the nat action
and will set the +est ct state.
However, the +new state may apply either for valid east-west traffic (e.g.
vxlan) due to source port entropy, or to insecure north-south traffic that
the fw should block. The user may distinguish between the two cases, for
example, by matching on the dest udp port.
Sorry but I still don't see the big picture. :-]
What do you consider as east-west and north-south traffic? My initial
understanding of east-west is traffic between VFs and north-south
would be in and out to the wire. You mentioned that north-south is
insecure, it would match, but then, non-encapsulated?
So it seems you referred to the datacenter. East-west is traffic
between hosts on the same datacenter, and north-south is traffic that
goes out of it. This seems to match.
Right.
Assuming it's the latter, then it seems that the idea is to work
around a config simplification that was done by the user. As
mentioned on the changelog, such protocols do not require stateful
processing, and AFAICU this patch twists conntrack so that the user
can have simplified rules. Why can't the user have specific rules for
the tunnels, and other for dealing with north-south traffic? The fw
would still be able to block unwanted traffic.
We cannot control what the user is doing.
This is a valid tc configuration and would work using tc software datapath.
However, in such configurations vxlan packets would not be processed in hardware because they are
marked as new connections.
My main problems with this is this, that it is making conntrack do
stuff that the user may not be expecting it to do, and that packets
may get matched (maybe even unintentionally) and the system won't have
visibility on them. Maybe I'm just missing something?
This is why we restricted this feature to udp protocols that will never enter established state due
to source port entropy.
Do you see a problematic use case that can arise?
The change in the model is that a miss on the CT table will be forwarded
to a new +trk+new ct table and a miss there will be forwarded to
the slow
path table.
AFAICU this new +trk+new ct table is a wildcard match on sport with
specific dports. Also AFAICU, such entries will not be visible to the
userspace then. Is this right?
Marcelo
right.
Thanks,
Marcelo
