Hi Jozsef, On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 02:31:18PM +0100, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2025, Maciej Żenczykowski 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) > { > .name = "MARK", > .revision = 2, > .family = NFPROTO_ARP, > .target = mark_tg, > .targetsize = sizeof(struct xt_mark_tginfo2), > .me = THIS_MODULE, > }, > #endif > #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IP6_NF_IPTABLES) > { > .name = "MARK", > .revision = 2, > .family = NFPROTO_IPV6, > .target = mark_tg, > .targetsize = sizeof(struct xt_mark_tginfo2), > .me = THIS_MODULE, > }, > #endif > }; > > How is it supposed to work for IPv4? > > 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? This was fixed by an incremental patch: 306ed1728e84 ("netfilter: xtables: fix typo causing some targets not to load on IPv6") so there is no two MARK targets for NFPROTO_IPV6. > Also, why the "mark" match was not split into NFPROTO_IPV4, NFPROTO_ARP, > NFPROTO_IPV6 explicitly (and other matches where the target was split)? The audit to tighten this interface searched for: - use of xtables verdicts are incompatible with ebtables. - IP header cannot be assumed to be linear on ebtables. xt_mark match can be restricted too, ebtables uses ebt_mark. But this should be safe, so this patch should probably go via nf-next. Thanks.
