Pablo,
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:27:13PM -0400, Eric Garver wrote:
> If --echo is used the rule cache will not be populated. This causes
> rules added using the "index" keyword to be simply appended to the
> chain. The bug was introduced in commit 3ab02db5f836 ("cache: add
> NFT_CACHE_UPDATE and NFT_CACHE_FLUSHED flags").
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Garver <eric@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> I think the issue is in cache_evaluate(). It sets the flags to
> NFT_CACHE_FULL and then bails early, but I'm not sure of the best way to
> fix it. So I'll start by submitting a test case. :)
In 3ab02db5f836a ("cache: add NFT_CACHE_UPDATE and NFT_CACHE_FLUSHED
flags"), you introduced NFT_CACHE_UPDATE to control whether
rule_evaluate() should call rule_cache_update(), probably assuming the
latter function merely changes cache depending on current command. In
fact, this function also links rules if needed (see call to
link_rules()).
The old code you replaced also did not always call rule_cache_update(),
but that was merely for sanity: If cache doesn't contain rules, there is
no point in updating it with added/replaced/removed rules. The implicit
logic is if we saw a rule command with 'index' reference, cache would be
completed up to rule level (because of the necessary index to handle
translation).
I'm not sure why you introduced NFT_CACHE_UPDATE in the first place, but
following my logic (and it seems to serve no other purpose) I would set
that flag whenever NFT_CACHE_RULE_BIT gets set. So IMHO,
NFT_CACHE_UPDATE is redundant.
Cheers, Phil
