Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2021-02-18 09:22, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > No. There is a hierarchy, e.g. you can't add a chain without first
> > adding a table, BUT in case the table was already created by an earlier
> > transaction it can also be stand-alone.
>
> Ok, so there could be a stand-alone chain mod with one table, then a
> table add of a different one with a "higher ranking" op...
Yes, that can happen.
> > > It seems I'd need to filter out the NFT_MSG_GET_* ops.
> >
> > No need, the GET ops do not cause changes and will not trigger a
> > generation id change.
>
> Ah, so it could trigger on generation change. Would GET ops be included
> in any other change
No, GET ops are standalone, they cannot be part of a transaction.
If you look at
static const struct nfnl_callback nf_tables_cb[NFT_MSG_MAX] = {
array in nf_tables_api.c, then those ops with a '.call_batch' can
appear in transaction (i.e., can cause modification).
The other ones (.call_rcu) are read-only.
If they appear in a batch tehy will be ignored, if the batch consists of
such non-modifying ops only then nf_tables_commit() returns early
because the transaction list is empty (nothing to do/change).
> such that it would be desirable to filter them out
> to reduce noise in that single log line if it is attempted to list all
> the change ops? It almost sounds like it would be better to do one
> audit log line for each table for each family, and possibly for each op
> to avoid the need to change userspace. This would already be a
> significant improvement picking the highest ranking op.
I think i understand what you'd like to do. Yes, that would reduce
the log output a lot.
