New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[v1.14] bpf: EgressGW-related tracing improvements #27524
Conversation
/test-backport-1.14 |
d342f4d
to
e91a96d
Compare
/test-backport-1.14 |
e91a96d
to
2f7c475
Compare
/test-backport-1.14 |
2f7c475
to
3e06e8f
Compare
/test-backport-1.14 |
/ci-verifier |
250d0a0
to
c6dca97
Compare
/ci-verifier |
c6dca97
to
3361de3
Compare
/ci-verifier |
[ upstream commit 93c8884 ] [ backporter's note: Looks a bit different, as the v1.14-stable branch doesn't have the SNAT split from cilium#26674. ] Right now this is decided at the lowest level of the SNAT path. But actually the callers know much better. In particular this avoids one case where we bake EgressGW knowledge deep into the SNAT code. Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@isovalent.com>
[ upstream commit 3796d0d ] When the NAT code creates a CT entry for a SNATed connection (for instance for EgressGW traffic), pass back the resulting trace information to tail_handle_snat_fwd_ipv*(). Note that this also wires up the path from tail_nodeport_nat_egress_ipv*(), but those connections never require CT on the NAT level. Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@isovalent.com>
[ upstream commit f4098db ] When redirecting EgressGW replies to the tunnel interface, we don't have a CT lookup to determine the trace reason. But we still know it's a reply, so we can set the reason manually. Signed-off-by: Julian Wiedmann <jwi@isovalent.com>
3361de3
to
5f4e7c2
Compare
/test-backport-1.14 |
Needed a backport of #27079 to reduce stack size :/. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Acking, given the authorship and previous review I assume that this has been double-checked by folks with more context than I have :)
Manual backport (due to complexity troubles and smaller contextual conflicts) of
Once this PR is merged, you can update the PR labels via:
or with