On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:13:45PM -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 9/25/22 6:26 AM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > Remove circular dependency between nf_nat module and nf_conntrack one
> > moving bpf_ct_set_nat_info kfunc in nf_nat_bpf.c
> >
> > Fixes: 0fabd2aa199f ("net: netfilter: add bpf_ct_set_nat_info kfunc helper")
> > Suggested-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_bpf.h | 5 ++
> > include/net/netfilter/nf_nat.h | 14 +++++
> > net/netfilter/Makefile | 6 ++
> > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_bpf.c | 49 ---------------
> > net/netfilter/nf_nat_bpf.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > net/netfilter/nf_nat_core.c | 2 +-
> > 6 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
> > create mode 100644 net/netfilter/nf_nat_bpf.c
> >
> > diff --git a/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_bpf.h b/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_bpf.h
> > index c8b80add1142..1ce46e406062 100644
> > --- a/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_bpf.h
> > +++ b/include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_bpf.h
> > @@ -4,6 +4,11 @@
> > #define _NF_CONNTRACK_BPF_H
> > #include <linux/kconfig.h>
> > +#include <net/netfilter/nf_conntrack.h>
> > +
> > +struct nf_conn___init {
> > + struct nf_conn ct;
> > +};
> > #if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF)) || \
> > (IS_MODULE(CONFIG_NF_CONNTRACK) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES))
> > diff --git a/include/net/netfilter/nf_nat.h b/include/net/netfilter/nf_nat.h
> > index e9eb01e99d2f..cd084059a953 100644
> > --- a/include/net/netfilter/nf_nat.h
> > +++ b/include/net/netfilter/nf_nat.h
> > @@ -68,6 +68,20 @@ static inline bool nf_nat_oif_changed(unsigned int hooknum,
> > #endif
> > }
> > +#if (IS_BUILTIN(CONFIG_NF_NAT) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF)) || \
> > + (IS_MODULE(CONFIG_NF_NAT) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF_MODULES))
> > +
> > +extern int register_nf_nat_bpf(void);
> > +
> > +#else
> > +
> > +static inline int register_nf_nat_bpf(void)
> > +{
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#endif
> > +
>
> This looks similar to the ones in nf_conntrack_bpf.h. Does it belong there
> better? No strong opinion here.
>
> The change looks good to me. Can someone from the netfilter team ack this
> piece also?
Could you move this into nf_conntrack_bpf.h ?
