Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? Any non-nft client/direct netlink user. > 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. If udata is missing, we only have the type available. If its a type with unspecific length (string, integer) we can use the key length to get the bit size. But for concatenation case, it might be ambigiuos. So, I would remove the "type integer, length" format again so in such case we would print type string or type integer. Users won't see this non-restoreable ruleset listed as long as the udata is there.
