NETOBSERV-2198: IPsec support #538

msherif1234 · 2025-01-30T11:30:00Z

Description

probing XFRM input and output processing to know if packets came encrypted or left encrypted

[root@ip-10-0-1-35 /]# ip xfrm state
src 10.0.1.158 dst 10.0.1.35
	proto esp spi 0x17e83b29 reqid 16393 mode transport
	replay-window 0 flag esn
	aead rfc4106(gcm(aes)) 0x2dff2e25143878e71710cc484f87a0e04a5d9882b9e23643f28692e33935eef6879f7ef5 128
	anti-replay esn context:
	 seq-hi 0x0, seq 0x0, oseq-hi 0x0, oseq 0x0
	 replay_window 128, bitmap-length 4
	 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 
	sel src 10.0.1.158/32 dst 10.0.1.35/32 proto udp sport 6081

Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

codecov · 2025-01-30T16:18:05Z

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 2.96296% with 131 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 26.59%. Comparing base (6c04bb6) to head (584a90b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pkg/tracer/tracer.go	0.00%	118 Missing ⚠️
pkg/ebpf/bpf_x86_bpfel.go	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
pkg/model/flow_content.go	0.00%	4 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
pkg/agent/agent.go	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #538      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   27.34%   26.59%   -0.75%     
==========================================
  Files          47       47              
  Lines        4988     5121     +133     
==========================================
- Hits         1364     1362       -2     
- Misses       3521     3653     +132     
- Partials      103      106       +3

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	`26.59% <2.96%> (-0.75%)`	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
pkg/agent/config.go	`8.33% <ø> (ø)`
pkg/decode/decode_protobuf.go	`32.10% <100.00%> (+0.78%)`	⬆️
pkg/agent/agent.go	`30.69% <0.00%> (-0.08%)`	⬇️
pkg/ebpf/bpf_x86_bpfel.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`
pkg/model/flow_content.go	`60.19% <0.00%> (-3.73%)`	⬇️
pkg/tracer/tracer.go	`0.00% <0.00%> (ø)`

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

msherif1234 · 2025-01-31T18:13:29Z

/ok-to-test

github-actions · 2025-01-31T18:15:47Z

New images:
quay.io/netobserv/ebpf-bytecode:5162ef0
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:5162ef0

These will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=5162ef0 make set-agent-image

msherif1234 · 2025-01-31T19:29:25Z

/ok-to-test

github-actions · 2025-01-31T19:31:45Z

New images:
quay.io/netobserv/ebpf-bytecode:bdedd3c
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:bdedd3c

These will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=bdedd3c make set-agent-image

msherif1234 · 2025-01-31T19:48:31Z

/ok-to-test

github-actions · 2025-01-31T19:50:57Z

New images:
quay.io/netobserv/ebpf-bytecode:d4ab178
quay.io/netobserv/netobserv-ebpf-agent:d4ab178

These will expire after two weeks.

To deploy this build, run from the operator repo, assuming the operator is running:

USER=netobserv VERSION=d4ab178 make set-agent-image

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-03-31T15:41:34Z

@msherif1234: This pull request references NETOBSERV-1668 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the epic to target either version "4.19." or "openshift-4.19.", but it targets "netobserv-1.9" instead.

In response to this:

Description

probing XFRM input and output processing to know if packets came encrypted or left encrypted
[root@ip-10-0-1-35 /]# ip xfrm state
src 10.0.1.158 dst 10.0.1.35
  proto esp spi 0x17e83b29 reqid 16393 mode transport
  replay-window 0 flag esn
  aead rfc4106(gcm(aes)) 0x2dff2e25143878e71710cc484f87a0e04a5d9882b9e23643f28692e33935eef6879f7ef5 128
  anti-replay esn context:
   seq-hi 0x0, seq 0x0, oseq-hi 0x0, oseq 0x0
   replay_window 128, bitmap-length 4
   00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 
  sel src 10.0.1.158/32 dst 10.0.1.35/32 proto udp sport 6081 
Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.

Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).

Does this PR require product documentation?

If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.

Does this PR require a product release notes entry?

If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.

Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.

If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.

QE requirements (check 1 from the list):

Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.

Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).

No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

bpf/ipsec.h

jotak · 2025-04-01T08:30:19Z

bpf/ipsec.h

+        extra_metrics->end_mono_time_ts = bpf_ktime_get_ns();
+        extra_metrics->eth_protocol = eth_protocol;
+        extra_metrics->flow_encrypted_ret = flow_encrypted_ret;
+        extra_metrics->flow_encrypted = flow_encrypted_ret == 0 ? true : false;


if a flow contains both encrypted and unencrypted packets, here we keep only the last packet state.
I'd argue it's more important to show any unencrypted state, no?
So something like:

if (extra_metrics->flow_encrypted && flow_encrypted_ret != 0) { extra_metrics->flow_encrypted = false; }

wdyt?

the encrypted flag name my be missleading here as it work both ways
for xfrm_input where we decrypt and check decryption state, while in xfrm_out this the encryption path , maybe I should rename them here as well to ipsec_ret and ipsec_success similar to the json ?

bpf/types.h

bpf/maps_definition.h

jotak · 2025-04-01T08:45:37Z

pkg/model/flow_content.go

+	if other.FlowEncrypted {
+		p.AdditionalMetrics.FlowEncrypted = other.FlowEncrypted
+	}
+	if p.AdditionalMetrics.FlowEncryptedRet != other.FlowEncryptedRet {
+		p.AdditionalMetrics.FlowEncryptedRet = other.FlowEncryptedRet
+	}


same remark as in the bpf code: I think we should prioritize showing errors over successes?

won't the above show both ?

jotak · 2025-04-01T13:05:06Z

bpf/ipsec.h

+    if (extra_metrics != NULL) {
+        extra_metrics->end_mono_time_ts = bpf_ktime_get_ns();
+        extra_metrics->eth_protocol = eth_protocol;
+        extra_metrics->flow_encrypted_ret = flow_encrypted_ret;


We shouldn't update flow_encrypted_ret to replace it with a success, if it had an error I think

Suggested change

extra_metrics->flow_encrypted_ret = flow_encrypted_ret;

if (flow_encrypted_ret != 0) {

extra_metrics->flow_encrypted_ret = flow_encrypted_ret;

}

openshift-ci-robot · 2025-04-01T16:08:39Z

@msherif1234: This pull request references NETOBSERV-2198 which is a valid jira issue.

Warning: The referenced jira issue has an invalid target version for the target branch this PR targets: expected the story to target the "4.19.0" version, but no target version was set.

In response to this:

Description

probing XFRM input and output processing to know if packets came encrypted or left encrypted
[root@ip-10-0-1-35 /]# ip xfrm state
src 10.0.1.158 dst 10.0.1.35
  proto esp spi 0x17e83b29 reqid 16393 mode transport
  replay-window 0 flag esn
  aead rfc4106(gcm(aes)) 0x2dff2e25143878e71710cc484f87a0e04a5d9882b9e23643f28692e33935eef6879f7ef5 128
  anti-replay esn context:
   seq-hi 0x0, seq 0x0, oseq-hi 0x0, oseq 0x0
   replay_window 128, bitmap-length 4
   00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 
  sel src 10.0.1.158/32 dst 10.0.1.35/32 proto udp sport 6081 
Dependencies

n/a

Checklist

If you are not familiar with our processes or don't know what to answer in the list below, let us know in a comment: the maintainers will take care of that.

Will this change affect NetObserv / Network Observability operator? If not, you can ignore the rest of this checklist.

Is this PR backed with a JIRA ticket? If so, make sure it is written as a title prefix (in general, PRs affecting the NetObserv/Network Observability product should be backed with a JIRA ticket - especially if they bring user facing changes).

Does this PR require product documentation?

If so, make sure the JIRA epic is labelled with "documentation" and provides a description relevant for doc writers, such as use cases or scenarios. Any required step to activate or configure the feature should be documented there, such as new CRD knobs.

Does this PR require a product release notes entry?

If so, fill in "Release Note Text" in the JIRA.

Is there anything else the QE team should know before testing? E.g: configuration changes, environment setup, etc.

If so, make sure it is described in the JIRA ticket.

QE requirements (check 1 from the list):

Standard QE validation, with pre-merge tests unless stated otherwise.

Regression tests only (e.g. refactoring with no user-facing change).

No QE (e.g. trivial change with high reviewer's confidence, or per agreement with the QE team).

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the openshift-eng/jira-lifecycle-plugin repository.

openshift-ci · 2025-04-01T19:54:49Z

@msherif1234: The following test failed, say /retest to rerun all failed tests or /retest-required to rerun all mandatory failed tests:

Test name	Commit	Details	Required	Rerun command
ci/prow/qe-e2e-tests	`142bea6`	link	false	`/test qe-e2e-tests`

Full PR test history. Your PR dashboard.

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes-sigs/prow repository. I understand the commands that are listed here.

Signed-off-by: Mohamed Mahmoud <[email protected]>

jotak

/lgtm

msherif1234 · 2025-04-02T13:37:17Z

/approve

openshift-ci · 2025-04-02T13:37:25Z

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: msherif1234

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

~~OWNERS~~ [msherif1234]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

openshift-ci bot added the do-not-merge/work-in-progress label Jan 30, 2025

msherif1234 marked this pull request as draft January 30, 2025 11:30

msherif1234 changed the title ~~WIP: Ipsec support~~ WIP: IPsec support Jan 30, 2025

msherif1234 force-pushed the ipsec_support branch 2 times, most recently from b85b6d1 to 539f368 Compare January 30, 2025 16:09

msherif1234 force-pushed the ipsec_support branch 5 times, most recently from d1c4b50 to e0ce8ed Compare January 31, 2025 16:22

openshift-ci bot added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Jan 31, 2025

msherif1234 force-pushed the ipsec_support branch from e0ce8ed to 61e4bfe Compare January 31, 2025 19:29

github-actions bot removed the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Jan 31, 2025

openshift-ci bot added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Jan 31, 2025

msherif1234 force-pushed the ipsec_support branch from 61e4bfe to 6430115 Compare January 31, 2025 19:48

github-actions bot removed the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Jan 31, 2025

openshift-ci bot added the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Jan 31, 2025

msherif1234 force-pushed the ipsec_support branch from 6430115 to f73f9d5 Compare January 31, 2025 20:45

github-actions bot removed the ok-to-test To set manually when a PR is safe to test. Triggers image build on PR. label Jan 31, 2025

msherif1234 force-pushed the ipsec_support branch from f73f9d5 to 75237b6 Compare February 1, 2025 12:53

openshift-merge-robot added the needs-rebase label Feb 1, 2025

msherif1234 force-pushed the ipsec_support branch from 75237b6 to 51b45a8 Compare February 12, 2025 15:01

openshift-merge-robot removed the needs-rebase label Feb 12, 2025

msherif1234 changed the title ~~NETOBSERV-2052: IPsec support~~ NETOBSERV-1668: IPsec support Mar 31, 2025