Re: [PATCH] netfilter: NFT_SOCKET don't use NF_SOCKET_IPV6 without NF_TABLES_IPV6

[MÃtà Eckl]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 01:24:59PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 01:15:36PM +0200, Máté Eckl wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 12:56:05PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> [...]
> > This patch only solves the nf_socket and nft_socket modules problem so I can
> > only submit a v2 for 'netfilter: Kconfig: Change IPv6 select dependencies' but
> > you already applied it so it would meen a force push. Should I do this?
> > 
> > I think Arnd's patch solves these problems in case we don't want to force-push
> > or rebase.
> 
> You are refering to these two patches, right?
> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/941374/
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/941696/

Oh, I missed the first one. So basically I should just squash them and resubmit
right? Or even replace ("netfilter: Kconfig: Change IPv6 select
dependencies") with these changes?

> > > I think it's better if we toss your original patch in the tree and
> > > rebase, ie. take the new one that fixes all issues that Arnd is
> > > reporting. It would be good if we can sort out this before I send the
> > > next pull request for net-next stuff.
> > > 
> > > I was afraid of fallout like this when I saw your original patch,
> > > kbuild is always tricky.
> > 
> > This patch is not related to the nft_tproxy module (it seems that you refer to
> > that) as Arnd didn't have that in the tree when doing this. I'll send a v4 fot
> > the tproxy module, but that cannot be related to this one as it is not in tree
> > yet.
> 
> No, I'm refering to 35bf1ccecaaa ("netfilter: Kconfig: Change IPv6
> select dependencies"), that is causing the issues.
> 
> Thanks.