On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 12:04:32PM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 05:55:42PM +0100, Vlad Buslov wrote:
> ...
> > struct flow_match {
> > @@ -288,6 +289,7 @@ struct flow_action_entry {
> > } ct;
> > struct {
> > unsigned long cookie;
> > + enum ip_conntrack_info ctinfo;
> > u32 mark;
> > u32 labels[4];
> > bool orig_dir;
> > diff --git a/net/sched/act_ct.c b/net/sched/act_ct.c
> > index 0ca2bb8ed026..515577f913a3 100644
> > --- a/net/sched/act_ct.c
> > +++ b/net/sched/act_ct.c
> > @@ -187,6 +187,7 @@ static void tcf_ct_flow_table_add_action_meta(struct nf_conn *ct,
> > /* aligns with the CT reference on the SKB nf_ct_set */
> > entry->ct_metadata.cookie = (unsigned long)ct | ctinfo;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmm. Thought that just came up and still need to dig into, but wanted
to share/ask already. Would it be a problem to update the cookie later
on then, to reflect the new ctinfo?
>
> > entry->ct_metadata.orig_dir = dir == IP_CT_DIR_ORIGINAL;
> > + entry->ct_metadata.ctinfo = ctinfo;
>
> tcf_ct_flow_table_restore_skb() is doing:
> enum ip_conntrack_info ctinfo = cookie & NFCT_INFOMASK;
>
> Not sure if it really needs this duplication then.
>
> >
> > act_ct_labels = entry->ct_metadata.labels;
> > ct_labels = nf_ct_labels_find(ct);
> > --
> > 2.38.1
> >
