On Thu, 2023-08-31 at 17:30 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> [ +Florian ]
>
> On 8/30/23 3:07 AM, Ilya Leoshkevich wrote:
> > bpf_nf testcase fails on s390x: bpf_skb_ct_lookup() cannot find the
> > entry that was added by bpf_ct_insert_entry() within the same BPF
> > function.
> >
> > The reason is that this entry is deleted by nf_ct_gc_expired().
> >
> > The CT timeout starts ticking after the CT confirmation; therefore
> > nf_conn.timeout is initially set to the timeout value, and
> > __nf_conntrack_confirm() sets it to the deadline value.
> > bpf_ct_insert_entry() sets IPS_CONFIRMED_BIT, but does not adjust
> > the
> > timeout, making its value meaningless and causing false positives.
> >
> > Fix the problem by making bpf_ct_insert_entry() adjust the timeout,
> > like __nf_conntrack_confirm().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ilya Leoshkevich <iii@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Should we route this fix via bpf tree instead? Also, could you reply
> with
> a Fixes tag?
Yes, putting this into the bpf tree makes sense to me. Should I resend
with a different subject-prefix?
Fixes: 2cdaa3eefed8 ("netfilter: conntrack: restore IPS_CONFIRMED out
of nf_conntrack_hash_check_insert()")
[...]
