On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 03:03:36PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > 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. Thanks! > > 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). Indeed, what scenario are you considering that set udata might be missing? We could still print it in such a case, even if we cannot parse it if you are willing to deal with. Just to provide some information to the user.
