Re: [PATCH bpf-next] bpf: Move nf_conn extern declarations to filter.h

[Martin KaFai Lau]

On 9/16/22 2:31 PM, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On 9/16/22 1:35 PM, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 22:20, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@xxxxxxxxx> 
> > wrote:
> > > On 9/11/22 11:19 AM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > > > We're seeing the following new warnings on netdev/build_32bit and
> > > > netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn CI jobs:
> > > >
> > > >       ../net/core/filter.c:8608:1: warning: symbol
> > > >       'nf_conn_btf_access_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?
> > > >       ../net/core/filter.c:8611:5: warning: symbol 'nfct_bsa' was not
> > > >       declared. Should it be static?
> > > >
> > > > Fix by ensuring extern declaration is present while compiling filter.o.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Xu <dxu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >    include/linux/filter.h                   | 6 ++++++
> > > >    include/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_bpf.h | 7 +------
> > > >    2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/filter.h b/include/linux/filter.h
> > > > index 527ae1d64e27..96de256b2c8d 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/filter.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/filter.h
> > > > @@ -567,6 +567,12 @@ struct sk_filter {
> > > >
> > > >    DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(bpf_stats_enabled_key);
> > > >
> > > > +extern struct mutex nf_conn_btf_access_lock;
> > > > +extern int (*nfct_bsa)(struct bpf_verifier_log *log, const struct 
> > > > btf *btf,
> > > > +                    const struct btf_type *t, int off, int size,
> > > > +                    enum bpf_access_type atype, u32 *next_btf_id,
> > > > +                    enum bpf_type_flag *flag);
> > >
> > > Can it avoid leaking the nfct specific details like
> > > 'nf_conn_btf_access_lock' and the null checking on 'nfct_bsa' to
> > > filter.c?  In particular, this code snippet in filter.c:
> > >
> > >           mutex_lock(&nf_conn_btf_access_lock);
> > >           if (nfct_bsa)
> > >                   ret = nfct_bsa(log, btf, ....);
> > >          mutex_unlock(&nf_conn_btf_access_lock);
> > >
> > >
> > > Can the lock and null check be done as one function (eg.
> > > nfct_btf_struct_access()) in nf_conntrack_bpf.c and use it in filter.c
> > > instead?
> >
> > Don't think so, no. Because we want nf_conntrack to work as a module 
> > as well.
> Ah, got it.
>
> I don't see nf_conntrack_btf_struct_access() in nf_conntrack_bpf.h is 
> used anywhere.  Can be removed?
>
> > I was the one who suggested nf_conn specific names for now. There is
> > no other user of such module supplied
> > btf_struct_access callbacks yet, when one appears, we should instead
> > make registration of such callbacks properly generic (i.e. also
> > enforce it is only for module BTF ID etc.).
> > But that would be a lot of code without any users right now.
>
> The lock is the only one needed to be in btf.c and 
> nfct_btf_struct_access() can be an inline in nf_conntrack_bpf.h instead?


nm. brain leaks.  nfct_bsa pointer is still needed :(  I was just 
thinking if it can avoid this nfct specific bits here.