[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP01T77JFBiO84iezH4Jh++vu=EEDf63KepK_jKFmjgjrHPgmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 02:27:38 +0200
From: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
To: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>
Cc: bpf@...r.kernel.org, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
andrii@...nel.org, pablo@...filter.org, fw@...len.de,
toke@...nel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v5 0/6] Support direct writes to nf_conn:mark
On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 18:41, Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.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.
Otherwise, for the series:
Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists