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 94A6B10F1 for ; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 16:53:19 +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=1736614402; cv=none; b=N/UBOCfCG6SLHGRGW5FgexaIKCncI0m8lGXwTqamcZ2UqADwmWBERmprgWRxRkYaDZK/GLDnAIxAxbeazkPKDWg/xZyiL9BFPr2qPFxdda5WMSXY3ucLZ5p6hsHGRR+WcGiOk4XTPudP3wylHOK7p1GIZ9rzuatnYOYl8D2CHlI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1736614402; c=relaxed/simple; bh=guPE5Gjn/88fNdcFpXmUwpxKl7DVxCxb7zhujurLL9A=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=jCp/5Y9B/qCS1OgoA+D8Oix9gBgAgiLLdxJFdUoruJscBb3RpUfZzthXjVbDmtqvk5GRbgo3WEwPtKcghBp9V+Q4Fm/bzrStmgKNUgBjKJk2LY/P3+i+4avGjUYyE2jJqGrmjjdxMvkRKxcZ8iTj+hqJ9lBcwSi0tmYwxyscECg= 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 71BEA19201D6; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:53:17 +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 q_ONqDIpu8A6; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:53:15 +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 3971419201BD; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:53:15 +0100 (CET) Received: by mentat.rmki.kfki.hu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1A16E142836; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:53:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mentat.rmki.kfki.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D611424A2; Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:53:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:53:15 +0100 (CET) From: Jozsef Kadlecsik To: Pablo Neira Ayuso cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=C5=BBenczykowski?= , Netfilter Development Mailinglist , Florian Westphal Subject: Re: Android boot failure with 6.12 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <6b97f047-e48c-3830-12cc-26385aea42a5@netfilter.org> References: <16d951e0-5fce-c227-5f50-10ecf3f16967@netfilter.org> 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="8323329-1028300721-1736614395=:4693" 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. --8323329-1028300721-1736614395=:4693 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Pablo, On Sat, 11 Jan 2025, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 02:31:18PM +0100, Jozsef Kadlecsik wrote: > >=20 > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2025, Maciej =C5=BBenczykowski wrote: > >=20 > > > nvm - https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.= git/commit/net/netfilter/xt_mark.c?id=3D306ed1728e8438caed30332e1ab46b28c= 25fe3d8 > >=20 > > Sorry, but I don't understand the patch at all. With it applied now i= t'd=20 > > be not possible to load in the "MARK" target with IPv4. The code segm= ent=20 > > after the patch: > >=20 > > 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 > > }; > >=20 > > How is it supposed to work for IPv4? > >=20 > > 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? >=20 > This was fixed by an incremental patch: >=20 > 306ed1728e84 ("netfilter: xtables: fix typo causing some targets not = to load on IPv6") >=20 > so there is no two MARK targets for NFPROTO_IPV6. No, it was my fault not checking the patch properly. It's completely fine= ,=20 sorry for the noise! 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 --8323329-1028300721-1736614395=:4693--