Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > nvm - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/commit/net/netfilter/xt_mark.c?id=306ed1728e8438caed30332e1ab46b28c25fe3d8 > > Sorry, but I don't understand the patch at all. With it applied now it'd > be not possible to load in the "MARK" target with IPv4. The code segment > after the patch: > > static struct xt_target mark_tg_reg[] __read_mostly = { > { > .name = "MARK", > .revision = 2, > .family = NFPROTO_IPV6, > .target = mark_tg, > .targetsize = sizeof(struct xt_mark_tginfo2), > .me = THIS_MODULE, > }, > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IP_NF_ARPTABLES) Then you re-applied the patch, its already in 6.12. NFPROTO_IPV6 is only set in the IP6_NF_IPTABLES section. > Why the "IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IP6_NF_IPTABLES)" part was not enough for the > IPv6-specific MARK target to be compiled in? Isn't it an issue about > selecting CONFIG_IP6_NF_IPTABLES vs CONFIG_IP6_NF_IPTABLES_LEGACY? No, _LEGACY is about the set/gersockopt interface and the old xt traversers, we could still use e.g. xt_mark.ko via NFT_COMPAT interface. > Also, why the "mark" match was not split into NFPROTO_IPV4, NFPROTO_ARP, > NFPROTO_IPV6 explicitly (and other matches where the target was split)? mark match is fine, afaics. Whats the concern? The target got split because ebtables EBT_CONTINUE isn't equal to XT_CONTINUE, so it won't do the right thing.
