diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'src/plugins/acl/acl_hash_lookup_doc.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/plugins/acl/acl_hash_lookup_doc.md | 241 |
1 files changed, 241 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/src/plugins/acl/acl_hash_lookup_doc.md b/src/plugins/acl/acl_hash_lookup_doc.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..cb93df04 --- /dev/null +++ b/src/plugins/acl/acl_hash_lookup_doc.md @@ -0,0 +1,241 @@ +ACL plugin constant-time lookup design {#acl_hash_lookup} +====================================== + +The initial implementation of ACL plugin performs a trivial for() cycle, +going through the assigned ACLs on a per-packet basis. This is not very +efficient, even if for very short ACLs due to its simplicity it can beat +more advanced methods. + +However, to cover the case of longer ACLs with acceptable performance, +we need to have a better way of matching. This write-up proposes +a mechanism to make a lookup from O(M) where M is number of entries +to O(N) where N is number of different mask combinations. + +Preparation of ACL(s) +--------------------- + +The ACL plugin will maintain a global list of "mask types", i.e. the specific +configurations of "do not care" bits within the ACEs. +Upon the creation of a new ACL, a pass will be made through all the +ACEs, to assign and possibly allocate the "mask type number". + +Each ACL has a structure *hash_acl_info_t* representing the "hash-based" +parts of information related to that ACL, primarily the array of +*hash_ace_info_t* structures - each of the members of that array +corresponding to one of the rules (ACEs) in the original ACL, +for this they have a pair of *(acl_index, ace_index)* to keep track, +predominantly for the debugging. + +Why do we need a whole separate structure, and are not adding new fields +to the existing rile structure ? First, encapsulation, to minimize +the pollution of the main ACL code with the hash-based lookup artifacts. + +Second, one rule may correspond to more than one "hash-based" ACE. +In fact, most of the rules do correspond to two of those. Why ? + +Consider that the current ACL lookup logic is that if a packet +is not the initial fragment, and there is an L4 entry acting on the packet, +the comparison will be made only on the L4 protocol field value rather +than on the protocol and port values. This beaviour is governed by +*l4_match_nonfirst_fragment* flag in the *acl_main*, and was needed to +maintain the compatibility with the existing software switch implementation. + +While for the sequential check in *single_acl_match_5tuple()* +it is very easy to implement by just breaking out at the right moment, +in case of hash-based matching this cost us two checks: +one on full 5-tuple and the flag *pkt.is_nonfirst_fragment* being zero, +the second on 3-tuple and the flag *pkt.is_nonfirst_fragment* being one, +with the second check triggered by the *acl_main.l4_match_nonfirst_fragment* +setting being the default 1. This dictates the necessity of having a "match" +field in a given *hash_ace_info_t* element, which would reflect the value +we are supposed to match after applying the mask. + +There can be other circumstances when it might be beneficial to expand +the given rule in the original ACL into multiple - for example, as an +optimization within the port range handling for small port ranges +(this is not done as of the time of writing). + +Assigning ACLs to an interface +------------------------------ + +Once the ACL list is assigned to an interface, or, rather, a new ACL +is added to the list of the existing ACLs applied to the interface, +we need to update the bihash accelerating the lookup. + +All the entries for the lookups are stored within a single *48_8* bihash, +which captures the 5-tuple from the packet as well as the miscellaneous +per-packet information flags, e.g. *l4_valid*, *is_non_first_fragment*, +and so on. To facilitate the use of the single bihash by all the interfaces, +the *is_ip6*, *is_input*, *sw_if_index* are part of the key, +as well as *mask_type_index* - the latter being necessary because +there can be entries with the same value but different masks, e.g.: +`permit ::/0, permit::/128`. + +At the moment of an ACL being applied to an interface, we need to +walk the list of *hash_ace_info_t* entries corresponding to that ACL, +and update the bihash with the keys corresponding to the match +values in these entries. + +The value of the hash match contains the index into a per-*sw_if_index* vector +of *applied_ace_hash_entry_t* elements, as well as a couple of flags: +*shadowed* (optimization: if this flag on a matched entry is zero, means +we can stop the lookup early and declare a match - see below), +and *need_portrange_check* - meaning that what matched was a superset +of the actual match, and we need to perform an extra check. + +Also, upon insertion, we must keep in mind there can be +multiple *applied_ace_hash_entry_t* for the same key and must keep +a list of those. This is necessary to incrementally apply/unapply +the ACLs as part of the ACL vector: say, two ACLs have +"permit 2001:db8::1/128 any" - we should be able to retain the entry +for the second ACL even if we have deleted the first one. +Also, in case there are two entries with the same key but +different port ranges, say 0..42 and 142..65535 - we need +to be able to sequentially match on those if we decide not +to expand them into individual port-specific entries. + +Per-packet lookup +----------------- + +The simple single-packet lookup is defined in +*multi_acl_match_get_applied_ace_index*, which returns the index +of the applied hash ACE if there was a match, or ~0 if there wasn't. + +The future optimized per-packet lookup may be batched in three phases: + +1. Prepare the keys in the per-worker vector by doing logical AND of + original 5-tuple record with the elements of the mask vector. +2. Lookup the keys in the bihash in a batch manner, collecting the + result with lowest u64 (acl index within vector, ACE index) from + the hash lookup value, and performing the list walk if necessary + (for portranges) +3. Take the action from the ACL record as defined by (ACL#, ACE#) from the + resulting lookup winner, or, if no match found, then perform default deny. + +Shadowed/independent/redundant ACEs +------------------------------------ + +During the phase of combining multiple ACLs into one rulebase, when they +are applied to interface, we also can perform several optimizations. + +If a given ACE is a strict subset of another ACE located up in the linear +search order, we can ignore this ACE completely - because by definition +it will never match. We will call such an ACE *redundant*. Here is an example: + +``` +permit 2001:db8:1::/48 2001:db8:2::/48 (B) +deny 2001:d8b:1:1::/64 2001:db8:2:1::/64 (A) +``` + +A bit more formally, we can define this relationship of an ACE A to ACE B as: + +``` +redundant(aceA, aceB) := (contains(protoB, protoA) && contains(srcB, srcA) + && contains(dstB, dstA) && is_after(A, B)) +``` + +Here as "contains" we define an operation operating on the sets defined by +the protocol, (srcIP, srcPortDefinition) and (dstIP, dstPortDefinition) +respectively, and returning true if all the elements represented by +the second argument are represented by the first argument. The "is_after" +is true if A is located below B in the ruleset. + +If a given ACE does not intersect at all with any other ACE +in front of it, we can mark it as such. + +Then during the sequence of the lookups the successful hit on this ACE means +we do not need to look up other mask combinations - thus potentially +significantly speeding up the match process. Here is an example, +assuming we have the following ACL: + +``` +permit 2001:db8:1::/48 2001:db8:2::/48 (B) +deny 2001:db8:3::/48 2001:db8:2:1::/64 (A) +``` + +In this case if we match the second entry, we do not need to check whether +we have matched the first one - the source addresses are completely +different. We call such an ACE *independent* from another. + +We can define this as + +``` +independent(aceA, aceB) := (!intersect(protoA, protoB) || + !intersect(srcA, srcB) || + !intersect(dstA, dstB)) +``` + +where intersect is defined as operation returning true if there are +elements belonging to the sets of both arguments. + +If the entry A is neither redundant nor independent from B, and is below +B in the ruleset, we call such an entry *shadowed* by B, here is an example: + +``` +deny tcp 2001:db8:1::/48 2001:db8:2::/48 (B) +permit 2001:d8b:1:1::/64 2001:db8:2:1::/64 (A) +``` + +This means the earlier rule "carves out" a subset of A, thus leaving +a "shadow". (Evidently, the action needs to be different for the shadow +to have an effect, but for for the terminology sake we do not care). + +The more formal definition: + +``` +shadowed(aceA, aceB) := !redundante(aceA, aceB) && + !independent(aceA, aceB) && + is_after(aceA, aceB) +``` + +Using this terminology, any ruleset can be represented as +a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph), with the bottom being the implicit +"deny any", pointing to the set of rules shadowing it or the ones +it is redundant for. + +These rules may in turn be shadowing each other. There is no cycles in +this graph because of the natural order of the rules - the rule located +closer to the end of the ruleset can never shadow or make redundant a rule +higher up. + +The optimization that enables can allow for is to skip matching certain +masks on a per-lookup basis - if a given rule has matched, +the only adjustments that can happen is the match with one of +the shadowing rules. + +Also, another avenue for the optimization can be starting the lookup process +with the mask type that maximizes the chances of the independent ACE match, +thus resulting in an ACE lookup being a single hash table hit. + + +Plumbing +-------- + +All the new routines are located in a separate file, +so we can cleanly experiment with a different approach if this +does not fit all of the use cases. + +The constant-time lookup within the data path has the API with +the same signature as: + +``` +u8 +multi_acl_match_5tuple (u32 sw_if_index, fa_5tuple_t * pkt_5tuple, int is_l2, + int is_ip6, int is_input, u32 * acl_match_p, + u32 * rule_match_p, u32 * trace_bitmap) +``` + +There should be a new upper-level function with the same signature, which +will make a decision whether to use a linear lookup, or to use the +constant-time lookup implemented by this work, or to add some other +optimizations (e.g. by keeping the cache of the last N lookups). + +The calls to the routine doing preparatory work should happen +in `acl_add_list()` after creating the linear-lookup structures, +and the routine doing the preparatory work populating the hashtable +should be called from `acl_interface_add_del_inout_acl()` or its callees. + +The initial implementation will be geared towards looking up a single +match at a time, with the subsequent optimizations possible to make +the lookup for more than one packet. + |