From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out.kfki.hu (smtp-out.kfki.hu [148.6.0.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2CC9383A2 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 13:31:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.6.0.49 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736602293; cv=none; b=CjqnnqMJJdCwvW5kJlDSMTEW6YX4fnDiwDX76GAypaOljeIm6tRuWxIvYxR899lY/Q25C3y8q3jxGgSlYGDCKRA+KJFwrd88T37PvrXbi+lQ+sVXx5mVsPXnVJEolcGXD8l3juo63yxPUgSTpPjPR+7/HELKUmHjmuYtpm0aZM4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736602293; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lwsv+dTjAvxl2A2ZY3puYhbkkDwNHYVS48WesT94Dhk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PUybvMsrRHSd7+fnQFC+j35LOLSPfXPuOvFkiBdNZgROJPU/XvymRQTJxX8riO5W1H7vf71KN4dSDh3kpDFZel8iJqkIoSdDSatekcPL0EjNzKhJFB7KxrvLjz/r6PxhVQgIly7wAzd+/DJzpOmJ5A+ag+ezXfRFlYPzvo7fZdE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.6.0.49 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.kfki.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0627219201D6; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 14:31:21 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavis at smtp0.kfki.hu Received: from smtp0.kfki.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp0.kfki.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10026) with ESMTP id hf7LPmUYCrmb; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 14:31:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from mentat.rmki.kfki.hu (80-95-82-5.pool.digikabel.hu [80.95.82.5]) (Authenticated sender: kadlecsik.jozsef@wigner.hu) by smtp0.kfki.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B165A19201D3; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 14:31:18 +0100 (CET) Received: by mentat.rmki.kfki.hu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6E59D142836; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 14:31:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mentat.rmki.kfki.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6C41413CF; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 14:31:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 14:31:18 +0100 (CET) From: Jozsef Kadlecsik To: =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=C5=BBenczykowski?= cc: Netfilter Development Mailinglist , Florian Westphal , Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: Android boot failure with 6.12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <16d951e0-5fce-c227-5f50-10ecf3f16967@netfilter.org> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="8323329-602670319-1736600904=:4693" Content-ID: <46c43c1f-151c-7ee4-dea5-432fb62f22a7@blackhole.kfki.hu> X-deepspam: ham 0% This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323329-602670319-1736600904=:4693 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-ID: <988af676-fbd2-6514-feea-a4a99ff9cfe5@blackhole.kfki.hu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Fri, 10 Jan 2025, Maciej =C5=BBenczykowski wrote: > nvm - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/= commit/net/netfilter/xt_mark.c?id=3D306ed1728e8438caed30332e1ab46b28c25fe= 3d8 Sorry, but I don't understand the patch at all. With it applied now it'd=20 be not possible to load in the "MARK" target with IPv4. The code segment=20 after the patch: static struct xt_target mark_tg_reg[] __read_mostly =3D { { .name =3D "MARK", .revision =3D 2, .family =3D NFPROTO_IPV6, .target =3D mark_tg, .targetsize =3D sizeof(struct xt_mark_tginfo2), .me =3D THIS_MODULE, }, #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IP_NF_ARPTABLES) { .name =3D "MARK", .revision =3D 2, .family =3D NFPROTO_ARP, .target =3D mark_tg, .targetsize =3D sizeof(struct xt_mark_tginfo2), .me =3D THIS_MODULE, }, #endif #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IP6_NF_IPTABLES) { .name =3D "MARK", .revision =3D 2, .family =3D NFPROTO_IPV6, .target =3D mark_tg, .targetsize =3D sizeof(struct xt_mark_tginfo2), .me =3D 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=20 IPv6-specific MARK target to be compiled in? Isn't it an issue about=20 selecting CONFIG_IP6_NF_IPTABLES vs CONFIG_IP6_NF_IPTABLES_LEGACY? Also, why the "mark" match was not split into NFPROTO_IPV4, NFPROTO_ARP,=20 NFPROTO_IPV6 explicitly (and other matches where the target was split)? Best regards, Jozsef --=20 E-mail : kadlec@netfilter.org, kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu, kadlecsik.jozsef@wigner.hu Address: Wigner Research Centre for Physics H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary --8323329-602670319-1736600904=:4693--