Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/4] Introduce bpf_ct_set_nat_info kfunc helper

[Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo.bianconi@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2232 bytes --]

> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 04:41:28PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > On 9/2/22 4:35 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > On Sep 02, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> > > > On 9/1/22 6:43 PM, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote:
> > > > > Introduce bpf_ct_set_nat_info kfunc helper in order to set source and
> > > > > destination nat addresses/ports in a new allocated ct entry not inserted
> > > > > in the connection tracking table yet.
> > > > > Introduce support for per-parameter trusted args.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi (2):
> > > > >     bpf: Add support for per-parameter trusted args
> > > > >     selftests/bpf: Extend KF_TRUSTED_ARGS test for __ref annotation
> > > > > 
> > > > > Lorenzo Bianconi (2):
> > > > >     net: netfilter: add bpf_ct_set_nat_info kfunc helper
> > > > >     selftests/bpf: add tests for bpf_ct_set_nat_info kfunc
> > > > > 
> > > > >    Documentation/bpf/kfuncs.rst                  | 18 +++++++
> > > > >    kernel/bpf/btf.c                              | 39 ++++++++++-----
> > > > >    net/bpf/test_run.c                            |  9 +++-
> > > > >    net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_bpf.c              | 49 ++++++++++++++++++-
> > > > >    .../testing/selftests/bpf/prog_tests/bpf_nf.c |  2 +
> > > > >    .../testing/selftests/bpf/progs/test_bpf_nf.c | 26 +++++++++-
> > > > >    tools/testing/selftests/bpf/verifier/calls.c  | 38 +++++++++++---
> > > > >    7 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Looks like this fails BPF CI, ptal:
> > > > 
> > > > https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/runs/8147936670?check_suite_focus=true
> > > 
> > > Hi Daniel,
> > > 
> > > it seems CONFIG_NF_NAT is not set in the kernel config file.
> > > Am I supposed to enable it in bpf-next/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/config?
> > 
> > This would have to be set there and added to the patches, yes. @Andrii/DanielM, is
> > this enough or are other steps needed on top of that?
> 
> Yes, I think it should be set at said location. Nothing else should be
> needed in addition that I can think of.

ack, I will wait a bit for some more feedbacks and then I will post v2.

Regards,
Lorenzo

> 
> Thanks,
> Daniel
> 
> [...]
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]