On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 01:21:50PM -0500, Laine Stump wrote: > The iptables-ebtables package is meant as a drop-in replacement for > the native ebtables package, but it formats some items in the -L > output differently, leading to failure of scripts that depend on the > output of ebtables -L. In particular: > > with old ebtables IPv6 prefixes are output as a netmask (e.g.: "/ffff:fc00") > > with iptables-ebtables IPv6 prefixes are always output as a numeric > prefix (e.g. "/22"), and suppressed completely if the prefix is > /128. > > This difference is also described in > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674536 > > "old" ebtables upstream has just accepted a patch to change its output > to match that of iptables-ebtables: > > https://marc.info/?l=netfilter-devel&m=155000828923204&w=2 > > so it makes sense for libvirt-tck to accept the new format (as well as > the old). As with the patch for fixing up MAC addresses with leading > 0s, this patch also uses sed to apply a substitution to the scraped > output of ebtables -L. However, rather than keeping the comparison > (expected) output in the old (netmask) form, it is changed to the new > (prefix) form, and the sed commands change netmasks to prefixes. (This > works out better because in some cases we need to replace [all ff's] > with "", and it's not possible to do that in the opposite direction > :-) Ok, so you're not doing a real netmask -> prefix convertor. You've just hardcoded the conversions we need given our expected data. This looks fine to me as a prudent approach. > Signed-off-by: Laine Stump <laine@xxxxxxxxx> > --- Reviewed-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
