Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So I believe its needed, concurrent update of ->status is possible and > > KCSAN would warn. Other spots either use READ_ONCE or use test_bit(). > > There are a more checks for ct->status & NAT_MASK in the tree that I > can see, if you are correct, then maybe a new helper function to check > for NAT_MASK is needed. I think it would make sense to add a helper, yes. Independent of this patch of course.
