Re: [PATCH bpf-next v7 07/13] net: netfilter: Add kfuncs to allocate and insert CT

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 11:02, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 03:42:39PM +0200, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h b/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h
> > index 37866c8386e2..83a60c684e6c 100644
> > --- a/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h
> > +++ b/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.h
> > @@ -84,4 +84,19 @@ void nf_conntrack_lock(spinlock_t *lock);
> >
> >  extern spinlock_t nf_conntrack_expect_lock;
> >
> > +/* ctnetlink code shared by both ctnetlink and nf_conntrack_bpf */
> > +
> > +#if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF)) || \
> > +    (IS_MODULE(CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES) || \
> > +    IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_NF_CT_NETLINK))
>
> There must be a better way to do this without ifdef pollution?
>
> Could you fix this?

I can just remove the ifdefs completely. The first part of the ifdef
is the correct way to detect BPF support for nf_conntrack, the second
is for ct netlink. These are the only two users. But it's not a lot of
code, so until it grows too much we can compile it unconditionally.

Or do you have anything else in mind (like defining a macro for the
bpf one and making the ifdef look less ugly)?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux