On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:42 PM Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Karuna Grewal <karunagrewal98@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I've a doubt in the nftables implementation for implementing the `-m > > time` support. > > Full -m time is complicated, do not worry about this yet. > > > I'm unable to get a proper idea of where the start and > > stop time comparison with the dest register's value takes place. > > Via the nftables evaluation loop. You only need to worry about placing > the value (timestamp) in the dst register (on kernel side), so your > patch looks pretty complete aside from the missing 'break'. > > Its userspace (nftables) responsibility to tell kernel to do something > with the register, such as a compare or range. > > Have a look at > http://git.netfilter.org/nftables/commit/src/meta.c?id=512795a673f999fb04b84dbbbe41174e9c581430 > > It should be enough to follow this approach, adding e.g. > META_TEMPLATE("timestamp", .. > > we have TYPE_TIME already, even though its a relative one, it > would/should work for a quick prototype. I had sent the patch for this basic case of simply comparing one timestamp. As the startdate and stopdate options need to implemented completely, should I make use of an interval or is using two different tokens viz. START_TSTAMP and STOP_TSTAMP the preferred option.