Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The listing path should be easier, since it's just parsing the TLVs > instead of invoking the nft parsing and evaluation phases. > > > If you think its the way to go, then ok, I can rework it but > > I will be unable to add the extra steps for other expression types > > for some time I fear. > > If you send a v3 including this work, I'll finishing the remaining > expressions. Ok, will respin. > One more thing regarding your patchset is: > > integer,128 > > If the typeof works for all of the existing selectors, then I think > there is not need to expose this raw type, right? How would you handle the 'udate missing' case? If its not a problem to display a non-restoreable ruleset (e.g. unspecific 'type integer' shown as set keys) in that case then the interger,width part can be omitted indeed. Let me know. For concatenations, we will be unable to show a proper ruleset without the udata info anyway (concatentations do not work at the moment for non-specific types anyway though).
