Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:53:15 +0200
From:   Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To:     Toke =?iso-8859-15?Q?H=F8iland-J=F8rgensen?= <toke@redhat.com>
Cc:     Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>, Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>,
        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: <cover.1687819413.git.dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
 <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

Toke H?iland-J?rgensen <toke@redhat.com> wrote:
> Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> 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.