Re: [nft PATCH 3/5] mnl: Allow for updating devices on existing inet ingress hook chains

[Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>]

On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 01:48:44AM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 01:01:00PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 12:29:03PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 04:25:11PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > > Complete commit a66b5ad9540dd ("src: allow for updating devices on
> > > > existing netdev chain") in supporting inet family ingress hook chains as
> > > > well. The kernel does already but nft has to add a proper hooknum
> > > > attribute to pass the checks.
> > > > 
> > > > The hook.num field has to be initialized from hook.name using
> > > > str2hooknum(), which is part of chain evaluation. Calling
> > > > chain_evaluate() just for that purpose is a bit over the top, but the
> > > > hook name lookup may fail and performing chain evaluation for delete
> > > > command as well fits more into the code layout than duplicating parts of
> > > > it in mnl_nft_chain_del() or elsewhere. Just avoid the
> > > > chain_cache_find() call as its assert() triggers when deleting by
> > > > handle and also don't add to be deleted chains to cache.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>
> > > > ---
> > > >  src/evaluate.c | 6 ++++--
> > > >  src/mnl.c      | 2 ++
> > > >  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
> > > > index b7e4f71fdfbc9..db4ac18f1dc9f 100644
> > > > --- a/src/evaluate.c
> > > > +++ b/src/evaluate.c
> > > > @@ -5758,7 +5758,9 @@ static int chain_evaluate(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct chain *chain)
> > > >  		return table_not_found(ctx);
> > > >  
> > > >  	if (chain == NULL) {
> > > > -		if (!chain_cache_find(table, ctx->cmd->handle.chain.name)) {
> > > > +		if (ctx->cmd->op != CMD_DELETE &&
> > > > +		    ctx->cmd->op != CMD_DESTROY &&
> > > > +		    !chain_cache_find(table, ctx->cmd->handle.chain.name)) {
> > > >  			chain = chain_alloc();
> > > >  			handle_merge(&chain->handle, &ctx->cmd->handle);
> > > >  			chain_cache_add(chain, table);
> > > > @@ -6070,7 +6072,7 @@ static int cmd_evaluate_delete(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct cmd *cmd)
> > > >  		return 0;
> > > >  	case CMD_OBJ_CHAIN:
> > > >  		chain_del_cache(ctx, cmd);
> > > > -		return 0;
> > > > +		return chain_evaluate(ctx, cmd->chain);
> > > 
> > > Maybe fix this to perform chain_del_cache() after chain_evaluate()?
> 
> I agree, side-effects of reusing chain_evaluate() for deletion are not
> worth it.
> 
> > > ie.
> > > 
> > >                 if (chain_evaluate(ctx, cmd->chain) < 0)
> > >                         return -1;
> > > 
> > >                 chain_del_cache(ctx, cmd);
> > 
> > My suggestion won't work.
> > 
> > Maybe add a specific chain_del_evaluate(), see untested patch attached.
> 
> Since we only need a proper value in chain->hook.num, a more minimal
> version is fine:
> 
> diff --git a/src/evaluate.c b/src/evaluate.c
> index b7e4f71fdfbc9..8cecbe09de01c 100644
> --- a/src/evaluate.c
> +++ b/src/evaluate.c
> @@ -5992,6 +5992,22 @@ static void chain_del_cache(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct cmd *cmd)
>         chain_free(chain);
>  }
>  
> +static int chain_del_evaluate(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct cmd *cmd)
> +{
> +       struct chain *chain = cmd->chain;
> +
> +       if (chain && chain->flags & CHAIN_F_BASECHAIN && chain->hook.name) {
> +               chain->hook.num = str2hooknum(chain->handle.family,
> +                                             chain->hook.name);
> +               if (chain->hook.num == NF_INET_NUMHOOKS)
> +                       return __stmt_binary_error(ctx, &chain->hook.loc, NULL,
> +                                                  "The %s family does not support this hook",
> +                                                  family2str(chain->handle.family));
> +       }
> +       chain_del_cache(ctx, cmd);
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
>  static void set_del_cache(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct cmd *cmd)
>  {
>         struct table *table;
> @@ -6069,8 +6085,7 @@ static int cmd_evaluate_delete(struct eval_ctx *ctx, struct cmd *cmd)
>         case CMD_OBJ_RULE:
>                 return 0;
>         case CMD_OBJ_CHAIN:
> -               chain_del_cache(ctx, cmd);
> -               return 0;
> +               return chain_del_evaluate(ctx, cmd);
>         case CMD_OBJ_TABLE:
>                 table_del_cache(ctx, cmd);
>                 return 0;
> 
> Fine with you?

Yes, thanks!