lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/6] Support direct writes to nf_conn:mark
Hi Kumar,

On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 02:27:38AM +0200, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 18:41, Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz> wrote:
> >
> > Support direct writes to nf_conn:mark from TC and XDP prog types. This
> > is useful when applications want to store per-connection metadata. This
> > is also particularly useful for applications that run both bpf and
> > iptables/nftables because the latter can trivially access this metadata.
> >
> > One example use case would be if a bpf prog is responsible for advanced
> > packet classification and iptables/nftables is later used for routing
> > due to pre-existing/legacy code.
> >
>
> There are a couple of compile time warnings when conntrack is disabled,
>
> ../net/core/filter.c:8608:1: warning: symbol 'nf_conn_btf_access_lock'
> was not declared. Should it be static?
> ../net/core/filter.c:8611:5: warning: symbol 'nfct_bsa' was not
> declared. Should it be static?
>
> Most likely because extern declaration is guarded by ifdefs. So just
> moving those out of ifdef should work.
> I guess you can send that as a follow up fix, or roll it in if you end
> up respinning.

Hmm, I don't see how filter.c ever #include's nf_conntrack_bpf.h. So
you'd think that the warning would always be present regardless of
CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK setting.

FWIW I can't reproduce the warning even with CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK=n.

Maybe the extern declarations should be in include/linux/filter.h
anyways? Might be cleaner. WDYT?

> Otherwise, for the series:
> Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>

Thanks!

Daniel

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-09-11 19:27    [W:0.100 / U:0.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site