Francesco Ruggeri <fruggeri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 1:23 AM Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Legacy would still be flawed though. > > > > Its fine too, new rule blob gets handled (and match/target checkentry > > called) before old one is dismantled. > > > > We only have a 0 refcount + hook unregister when rules get > > flushed/removed explicitly. > > Should the patch be used in the meantime while this gets > worked out? I think the patch is correct, and I do NOT see a better solution.
