From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455E3EB64DD for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 14:53:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232307AbjF2OxW (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:53:22 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41894 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232265AbjF2OxV (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:53:21 -0400 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:237:300::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 595152D62; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 07:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw by Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qEt1H-0007I0-3C; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:53:15 +0200 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:53:15 +0200 From: Florian Westphal To: Toke =?iso-8859-15?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= Cc: Florian Westphal , Daniel Xu , bpf@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, coreteam@netfilter.org, netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, dsahern@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/7] Support defragmenting IPv(4|6) packets in BPF Message-ID: <20230629145315.GB10165@breakpoint.cc> References: <874jmthtiu.fsf@toke.dk> <20230627154439.GA18285@breakpoint.cc> <87o7kyfoqf.fsf@toke.dk> <20230629132141.GA10165@breakpoint.cc> <87leg2fia0.fsf@toke.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87leg2fia0.fsf@toke.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote: > Florian Westphal writes: > As for the original question, that's answered by your point above: If > those two modules are the only ones that are likely to need this, then a > flag for each is fine by me - that was the key piece I was missing (I'm > not a netfilter expert, as you well know). No problem, I was worried I was missing an important piece of kfunc plumbing :-) You do raise a good point though. With kfuncs, module is pinned. So, should a "please turn on defrag for this bpf_link" pin the defrag modules too? For plain netfilter we don't do that, i.e. you can just do "rmmod nf_defrag_ipv4". But I suspect that for the new bpf-link defrag we probably should grab a reference to prevent unwanted functionality breakage of the bpf prog.