On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 1:36 AM Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 07:20:21AM IST, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote: > > This series adds unstable conntrack lookup helpers using BPF kfunc support. The > > patch adding the lookup helper is based off of Maxim's recent patch to aid in > > rebasing their series on top of this, all adjusted to work with module kfuncs [0]. > > > > [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20211019144655.3483197-8-maximmi@xxxxxxxxxx > > > > To enable returning a reference to struct nf_conn, the verifier is extended to > > support reference tracking for PTR_TO_BTF_ID, and kfunc is extended with support > > for working as acquire/release functions, similar to existing BPF helpers. kfunc > > returning pointer (limited to PTR_TO_BTF_ID in the kernel) can also return a > > PTR_TO_BTF_ID_OR_NULL now, typically needed when acquiring a resource can fail. > > kfunc can also receive PTR_TO_CTX and PTR_TO_MEM (with some limitations) as > > arguments now. There is also support for passing a mem, len pair as argument > > to kfunc now. In such cases, passing pointer to unsized type (void) is also > > permitted. > > > > Please see individual commits for details. > > > > Note: BPF CI needs to add the following to config to test the set. I did update > > the selftests config in patch 8, but not sure if that is enough. > > > > CONFIG_NETFILTER=y > > CONFIG_NF_DEFRAG_IPV4=y > > CONFIG_NF_DEFRAG_IPV6=y > > CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK=y > > > > Hm, so this is not showing up in BPF CI, is it some mistake from my side? The > last couple of versions produced build time warnings in Patchwork, that I fixed, > which I suspected was the main cause. Not a mistake, for BPF CI there are separate configs that need to be updated manually: - https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/.github/actions/vmtest/latest.config for kernel patches CI - https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/tree/master/travis-ci/vmtest/configs (there is x86-64 and s390x configs) for libbpf CI > > There's still one coming from the last patch, but based on [0], I am not sure > whether I should be doing things any differently (and if I do fix it, it also > needs to be done for the functions added before). The warnings are from the 11 > new kfuncs I added in net/bpf/test_run.c, for their missing declarations. > > Comments? > > [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20200326235426.ei6ae2z5ek6uq3tt@ast-mbp > > > [...] > > -- > Kartikeya
