Hi Ilya, (+ add people/ML back in cc) On 23/10/2024 14:11, Ilya K wrote: >> Hi Ilya, >> >> On 18/10/2024 17:45, Ilya Katsnelson wrote: >>> These were added with the wrong family in 4cdc55e, which seems >>> to just have been a typo, but now ip6tables rules with --set-mark >>> don't work anymore, which is pretty bad. >> >> Funny, with this patch, now the v4 version doesn't work any more, which >> is pretty bad as well ;-) >> >> More seriously, it looks like your patch broke MPTCP selftests: >> >> >> https://netdev-3.bots.linux.dev/vmksft-mptcp-dbg/results/826643/1-mptcp-join-sh/stdout >> >> Two tests are now failing, because they can no longer add a mark: >> >>> # iptables -t mangle -A OUTPUT -j MARK --set-mark 1 >>> Warning: Extension MARK revision 0 not supported, missing kernel module? >>> iptables v1.8.10 (nf_tables): RULE_APPEND failed (No such file or directory): rule in chain OUTPUT >> >> Please see below: >> >>> diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_NFLOG.c b/net/netfilter/xt_NFLOG.c >>> index d80abd6ccaf8f71fa70605fef7edada827a19ceb..6dcf4bc7e30b2ae364a1cd9ac8df954a90905c52 100644 >>> --- a/net/netfilter/xt_NFLOG.c >>> +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_NFLOG.c >>> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static struct xt_target nflog_tg_reg[] __read_mostly = { >>> { >>> .name = "NFLOG", >>> .revision = 0, >>> - .family = NFPROTO_IPV4, >>> + .family = NFPROTO_IPV6, >> >> Here, by setting the family to v6 instead of v4, we now have two targets >> that are exactly the same, both for v6: >> >>> 67 │ static struct xt_target nflog_tg_reg[] __read_mostly = { >>> 68 │ { >>> 69 │ .name = "NFLOG", >>> 70 │ .revision = 0, >>> 71 │ .family = NFPROTO_IPV6, /* <== The line you modified */ >>> 72 │ .checkentry = nflog_tg_check, >>> 73 │ .destroy = nflog_tg_destroy, >>> 74 │ .target = nflog_tg, >>> 75 │ .targetsize = sizeof(struct xt_nflog_info), >>> 76 │ .me = THIS_MODULE, >>> 77 │ }, >>> 78 │ #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IP6_NF_IPTABLES) >>> 79 │ { >>> 80 │ .name = "NFLOG", >>> 81 │ .revision = 0, >>> 82 │ .family = NFPROTO_IPV6, /* <== v6 was already there */ >>> 83 │ .checkentry = nflog_tg_check, >>> 84 │ .destroy = nflog_tg_destroy, >>> 85 │ .target = nflog_tg, >>> 86 │ .targetsize = sizeof(struct xt_nflog_info), >>> 87 │ .me = THIS_MODULE, >>> 88 │ }, >>> 89 │ #endif >>> 90 │ }; >> >> Are you sure you didn't have the bug you mentioned because your kernel >> config doesn't have CONFIG_IP6_NF_IPTABLES? >> >>> .checkentry = nflog_tg_check, >>> .destroy = nflog_tg_destroy, >>> .target = nflog_tg, >>> diff --git a/net/netfilter/xt_mark.c b/net/netfilter/xt_mark.c >>> index f76fe04fc9a4e19f18ac323349ba6f22a00eafd7..65b965ca40ea7ea5d9feff381b433bf267a424c4 100644 >>> --- a/net/netfilter/xt_mark.c >>> +++ b/net/netfilter/xt_mark.c >>> @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ static struct xt_target mark_tg_reg[] __read_mostly = { >>> { >>> .name = "MARK", >>> .revision = 2, >>> - .family = NFPROTO_IPV4, >>> + .family = NFPROTO_IPV6, >> >> Same here. >> >> So I think this patch is not needed, right? >> >>> .target = mark_tg, >>> .targetsize = sizeof(struct xt_mark_tginfo2), >>> .me = THIS_MODULE, >>> >>> --- >>> base-commit: 75aa74d52f43e75d0beb20572f98529071b700e5 >>> change-id: 20241018-xtables-typos-dfeadb8b122d >>> >>> Best regards, >> >> Cheers, >> Matt > > The patch never got merged, but Pablo's very similar patch did. Are you > by any chance applying my changes on top of a tree that also contains > his? Thank you for this reply! Oh, sorry, I see the issue now, just an unlucky situation: - On one hand, and probably because the issue was visible on stable too, Pablo sent a new version changing the author and the title ("not to load" vs "to not load") [1]. Because of that, the bot didn't mark the previous version as superseded. - On the other hand, the CI tried to apply all the pending patches, including this patch here: when git tried to apply this patch, it managed to find the exact same context a bit before, and then modified the wrong line [2]. The two combined resulted in the CI trying to validate a buggy patch not doing what it was intended to do.
