lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20221012220953.i2xevhu36kxyxscl@k2> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 16:09:53 -0600 From: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> To: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev> Cc: pablo@...filter.org, fw@...len.de, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andrii@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, memxor@...il.com Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v4 2/3] selftests/bpf: Add connmark read test Hi Martin, On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 10:49:32PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > On 8/11/22 2:55 PM, Daniel Xu wrote: > > Test that the prog can read from the connection mark. This test is nice > > because it ensures progs can interact with netfilter subsystem > > correctly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> > > Acked-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@...il.com> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c | 3 ++- > > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c | 3 +++ > > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c > > index 88a2c0bdefec..544bf90ac2a7 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ static int connect_to_server(int srv_fd) > > static void test_bpf_nf_ct(int mode) > > { > > - const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CT"; > > + const char *iptables = "iptables -t raw %s PREROUTING -j CONNMARK --set-mark 42/0"; > Hi Daniel Xu, this test starts failing recently in CI [0]: > > Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module? > iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id: > Invalid argument > > Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module? > iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id: > Invalid argument > > Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module? > iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id: > Invalid argument > > Warning: Extension CONNMARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module? > iptables v1.8.8 (nf_tables): Could not fetch rule set generation id: > Invalid argument > > test_bpf_nf_ct:PASS:test_bpf_nf__open_and_load 0 nsec > test_bpf_nf_ct:FAIL:iptables unexpected error: 1024 (errno 0) > > Could you help to take a look? Thanks. > > [0]: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/3231598391/jobs/5291529292 [...] Thanks for letting me know. I took a quick look and it seems that synproxy selftest is also failing: 2022-10-12T03:14:20.2007627Z test_synproxy:FAIL:iptables -t raw -I PREROUTING -i tmp1 -p tcp -m tcp --syn --dport 8080 -j CT --notrack unexpected error: 1024 (errno 2) Googling the "Could not fetch rule set generation id" yields a lot of hits. Most of the links are from downstream projects recommending user downgrade iptables (nftables) to iptables-legacy. So perhaps iptables/nftables suffered a regression somewhere. I'll take a closer look tonight / tomorrow morning. Thanks, Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists