On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:00:43PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 04:23:13PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > Uses same syntax as iptables: itfname+. > > > > Good you're bringing up this issue, we've been discussing this for a > > while with recent Anand's patch. > > > > > The '+' suffix is not stored on the kernel side; this approach > > > is the same as the one used by iptables-nftables. > > > > Hm, it seems current iptables-nftables seems broken by: > > > > 73ea1cc nft: convert rule into a command state structure > > I tested with latest ipt-nft (42531b3a6) -- admittingly, I did only > test xt-save output, which adds '+' postfix in the no-trailing-nul case. > > > > Caveats: > > > - I am not convinced '+' is a good idea -- it is ambiguous since > > > 'foo+' is a legal interface name. > > > > I think we can remove the '+' in nft, so we match exactly what we > > pass for the ifname case, eg. iifname "eth". > > Hm. "iifname eth1": Should it match eth1? Yes. But what about eth10, > eth1.42, etc? I think we need an explicit way to resolve the ambiguity; I think "iffname eth1" should mean match "eth1\0". > relying on 'if_nametoinfex()' and just using index matching if we find > an interface is not a good idea, it could fail too often in practice, > or lead to unexpected results if rules are loaded before interfaces > are brought up. Agreed, if_nametoindex is not a good idea as I mentioned in my previous email. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
