On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:35:03PM +0200, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 22:20, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/11/22 11:19 AM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > > We're seeing the following new warnings on netdev/build_32bit and
> > > netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn CI jobs:
> > >
> > > ../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?
> > >
> > > Fix by ensuring extern declaration is present while compiling filter.o.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/filter.h | 6 ++++++
> > > include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_bpf.h | 7 +------
> > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> > > index 527ae1d64e27..96de256b2c8d 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> > > @@ -567,6 +567,12 @@ struct sk_filter {
> > >
> > > DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(bpf_stats_enabled_key);
> > >
> > > +extern struct mutex nf_conn_btf_access_lock;
> > > +extern int (*nfct_bsa)(struct bpf_verifier_log *log, const struct btf *btf,
> > > + const struct btf_type *t, int off, int size,
> > > + enum bpf_access_type atype, u32 *next_btf_id,
> > > + enum bpf_type_flag *flag);
> >
> > Can it avoid leaking the nfct specific details like
> > 'nf_conn_btf_access_lock' and the null checking on 'nfct_bsa' to
> > filter.c? In particular, this code snippet in filter.c:
> >
> > mutex_lock(&nf_conn_btf_access_lock);
> > if (nfct_bsa)
> > ret = nfct_bsa(log, btf, ....);
> > mutex_unlock(&nf_conn_btf_access_lock);
> >
> >
> > Can the lock and null check be done as one function (eg.
> > nfct_btf_struct_access()) in nf_conntrack_bpf.c and use it in filter.c
> > instead?
>
> Don't think so, no. Because we want nf_conntrack to work as a module as well.
> I was the one who suggested nf_conn specific names for now. There is
> no other user of such module supplied
> btf_struct_access callbacks yet, when one appears, we should instead
> make registration of such callbacks properly generic (i.e. also
> enforce it is only for module BTF ID etc.).
> But that would be a lot of code without any users right now.
>
> >
> > btw, 'bsa' stands for btf_struct_access? It is a bit too short to guess ;)
> >
> > Also, please add a Fixes tag.
> >
>
> Agreed. Daniel, can you address the remaining two points from Martin and respin?
Yes, will do.
Thanks,
Daniel
