On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 12:19:24PM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:10:56 +0100
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:59:24AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > [...]
> > > One detail, unrelated to this patch, that I should probably document in
> > > man pages and Wiki (I forgot, it occurred to me while testing): it is
> > > allowed to insert an entry if a proper subset of it, with no
> > > overlapping bounds, is already inserted. The reverse sequence is not
> > > allowed. This can be used without ambiguity due to strict guarantees
> > > about ordering. That is:
> > >
> > > # nft add element t s '{ 1.0.0.20-1.0.0.21 . 3.3.3.3 }'
> > > # nft add element t s '{ 1.0.0.10-1.0.0.100 . 3.3.3.3 }'
> >
> > OK, so first element "shadows" the second one. And the first element
> > will matching in case that address is 1.0.0.20 and 10.0.0.21. Right?
>
> Correct.
So this is happening because the result bitmap contains the pipapo
rules that represent the first element and the second. But when
iterating over the result bitmap bits, the pipapo rule that represents
the first element is taken as the matching one, right?
I mean, to catch elements that represents subsets/supersets of another
element (like in this example above), pipapo would need to make a
lookup for already matching rules for this new element?
Thanks.
