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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8818DC433ED for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642CF6135C for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:55:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230408AbhETV5J (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2021 17:57:09 -0400 Received: from mail.netfilter.org ([217.70.188.207]:49486 "EHLO mail.netfilter.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230382AbhETV5J (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2021 17:57:09 -0400 Received: from us.es (unknown [90.77.255.23]) by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89E9664195; Thu, 20 May 2021 23:54:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 23:55:43 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: =?utf-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5l?= Veyret Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: warning splat in nftables ct expect Message-ID: <20210520215543.GA29522@salvia> References: <20210518152426.GA23687@salvia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 08:00:53PM +0200, Stéphane Veyret wrote: > HI, > > > I can fix this by adding the nf_ct_is_confirmed() check, but then you > > can only create an expectation from the first packet. I guess this is > > fine for your usecase, right? > > Well, I must say that I actually never used the expectations, and > probably will not use it before long. So, of course, you can add the > check. No problem. The limitation (only allowing to create the expectation from the first packet) should be relatively easy to remove by adding an action to attach a "dummy" helper. Thanks.