Re: [PATCH 09/11 net-next v5] bpf: remove ipv6_bpf_stub completely and use direct function calls

[David Ahern]

On 3/25/26 2:29 PM, Fernando Fernandez Mancera wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> I don't think so. The IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) check here is just to
> prevent an undefined reference when compiling with CONFIG_IPV6=n. Note
> that this code isn't reachable when ipv6.disable=1 is set during
> booting, as it would have crashed even before this change because
> ipv6_stub->nd_tbl is NULL if the IPV6 is disabled since booting.
> 
> We addressed the vulnerable paths already during this series:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20260307-net-nd_tbl_fixes-v4-0-e2677e85628c@xxxxxxxx/#

What about the use case of IPv4 routes with IPv6 nexthop address? Has
that been tested with a bpf forwarding program?