From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Mon Feb 18 20:17:26 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D9614EA620 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:17:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::24b:4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9698841BC; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:17:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [5.9.86.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.codepro.be", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: kp) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 77F84FC5F; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:17:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.228.1] (ptr-8rh08jz61yyfq8za5mu.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be [IPv6:2a02:1811:240e:402:4884:154c:fc4:be06]) (Authenticated sender: kp) by venus.codepro.be (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A92EE2C799; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:17:22 +0100 (CET) From: "Kristof Provost" To: "Andreas Longwitz" Cc: "Konstantin Belousov" , freebsd-pf@freebsd.org, "Gleb Smirnoff" Subject: Re: rdr pass for proto tcp sometimes creates states with expire time zero and so breaking connections Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 21:17:21 +0100 X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6135) Message-ID: <222311AF-CA32-4C78-8550-215D9B4360AC@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <5C6AEBB8.2030305@incore.de> References: <5BD45882.1000207@incore.de> <5BEB3B9A.9080402@incore.de> <20181113222533.GJ9744@FreeBSD.org> <5C49ECAA.7060505@incore.de> <20190124203802.GU24863@kib.kiev.ua> <5C4A37A1.80206@incore.de> <20190125131409.GZ24863@kib.kiev.ua> <5C557065.10600@incore.de> <20190202184208.GG24863@kib.kiev.ua> <5C6AEBB8.2030305@incore.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: B9698841BC X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.97 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[FreeBSD.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.967,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:2610:1c1:1::/48, country:US] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; markup=markdown Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 20:17:26 -0000 On 18 Feb 2019, at 18:30, Andreas Longwitz wrote: >> Ok, thanks, I will commit the patch shortly. I do not see a point in >> waiting >> for two more weeks, sure report me if anything goes wrong. > > your patch for counter(9) on i386 definitely solves my problem > discussed > in this thread. > > Because fetching a counter is a rather expansive function we should > use > counter_u64_fetch() in pf_state_expires() only when necessary. A "rdr > pass" rule should not cause more effort than separate "rdr" and "pass" > rules. For rules with adaptive timeout values the call of > counter_u64_fetch() should be accepted, but otherwise not. > > For a small gain in performance especially for "rdr pass" rules I > suggest something like > > --- pf.c.orig 2019-02-18 17:49:22.944751000 +0100 > +++ pf.c 2019-02-18 17:55:07.396163000 +0100 > @@ -1558,7 +1558,7 @@ > if (!timeout) > timeout = V_pf_default_rule.timeout[state->timeout]; > start = state->rule.ptr->timeout[PFTM_ADAPTIVE_START]; > - if (start) { > + if (start && state->rule.ptr != &V_pf_default_rule) { > end = state->rule.ptr->timeout[PFTM_ADAPTIVE_END]; > states = > counter_u64_fetch(state->rule.ptr->states_cur); > } else { > I think that looks correct. Do you have any performance measurements on this? Although presumably it only really matters in cases where there’s no explicit catch-all rule, so I do wonder if it’s worth it. Regards, Kristof From owner-freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Tue Feb 19 21:53:16 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D159214DAFA8 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:53:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from longwitz@incore.de) Received: from dss.incore.de (dss.incore.de [195.145.1.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 673D376004; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:53:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from longwitz@incore.de) Received: from inetmail.dmz (inetmail.dmz [10.3.0.3]) by dss.incore.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CE227DC5; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:53:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at incore.de Received: from dss.incore.de ([10.3.0.3]) by inetmail.dmz (inetmail.dmz [10.3.0.3]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id wLMHAAo4O-S3; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:53:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.local.incore (fwintern.dmz [10.0.0.253]) by dss.incore.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374D727DAD; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:53:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from bsdmhs.longwitz (unknown [192.168.99.6]) by mail.local.incore (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF8ED1D2; Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:53:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5C6C7AC1.4080201@incore.de> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:53:05 +0100 From: Andreas Longwitz User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090113) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kristof Provost CC: Konstantin Belousov , freebsd-pf@freebsd.org, Gleb Smirnoff Subject: Re: rdr pass for proto tcp sometimes creates states with expire time zero and so breaking connections References: <5BD45882.1000207@incore.de> <5BEB3B9A.9080402@incore.de> <20181113222533.GJ9744@FreeBSD.org> <5C49ECAA.7060505@incore.de> <20190124203802.GU24863@kib.kiev.ua> <5C4A37A1.80206@incore.de> <20190125131409.GZ24863@kib.kiev.ua> <5C557065.10600@incore.de> <20190202184208.GG24863@kib.kiev.ua> <5C6AEBB8.2030305@incore.de> <222311AF-CA32-4C78-8550-215D9B4360AC@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <222311AF-CA32-4C78-8550-215D9B4360AC@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 673D376004 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of longwitz@incore.de designates 195.145.1.138 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=longwitz@incore.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.26 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.91)[-0.907,0]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[incore.de]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.97)[-0.975,0]; IP_SCORE(0.04)[asn: 3320(0.21), country: DE(-0.01)]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[dss.incore.de]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.11)[-0.106,0]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[138.1.145.195.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:3320, ipnet:195.145.0.0/16, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 21:53:17 -0000 Kristof Provost wrote: > > Because fetching a counter is a rather expansive function we should use > counter_u64_fetch() in pf_state_expires() only when necessary. A "rdr > pass" rule should not cause more effort than separate "rdr" and "pass" > rules. For rules with adaptive timeout values the call of > counter_u64_fetch() should be accepted, but otherwise not. > > For a small gain in performance especially for "rdr pass" rules I > suggest something like > > --- pf.c.orig 2019-02-18 17:49:22.944751000 +0100 > +++ pf.c 2019-02-18 17:55:07.396163000 +0100 > @@ -1558,7 +1558,7 @@ > if (!timeout) > timeout = V_pf_default_rule.timeout[state->timeout]; > start = state->rule.ptr->timeout[PFTM_ADAPTIVE_START]; > - if (start) { > + if (start && state->rule.ptr != &V_pf_default_rule) { > end = state->rule.ptr->timeout[PFTM_ADAPTIVE_END]; > states = counter_u64_fetch(state->rule.ptr->states_cur); > } else { > > I think that looks correct. Do you have any performance measurements on > this? No > Although presumably it only really matters in cases where there’s no > explicit catch-all rule, so I do wonder if it’s worth it. Sorry, but I do not understand this argument. >From manpage: The adaptive timeout values can be defined both globally and for each rule. When used on a per-rule basis, the values relate to the number of states created by the rule, otherwise to the total number of states. This handling of adaptive timeouts is done in pf_state_expires(): start = state->rule.ptr->timeout[PFTM_ADAPTIVE_START]; if (start) { end = state->rule.ptr->timeout[PFTM_ADAPTIVE_END]; states = counter_u64_fetch(state->rule.ptr->states_cur); } else { start = V_pf_default_rule.timeout[PFTM_ADAPTIVE_START]; end = V_pf_default_rule.timeout[PFTM_ADAPTIVE_END]; states = V_pf_status.states; } The following calculation needs three values: start, end and states. 1. Normal rules "pass .." without adaptive setting meaning "start = 0" runs in the else-section of the code snippet and therefore takes "start" and "end" from the global default settings and sets "states" to pf_status.states (= total number of states). 2. Special rules like "pass .. keep state (adaptive.start 500 adaptive.end 1000)" have start != 0, run in the if-section of the code snippet and take "start" and "end" from the rule and set "states" to the number of states created by their rule using counter_u64_fetch(). Thats all ok, but there is a third case without special handling in the above code snippet: 3. All "rdr/nat pass .." statements use together the pf_default_rule. Therefore we have "start != 0" in this case and we run the if-section of the code snippet but we better should run the else-section in this case and do not fetch the counter of the pf_default_rule but take the total number of states. Thats what the patch does. Regards Andreas