On 2021-02-18 13:52, Florian Westphal wrote: > 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. Ok, can I get one more clarification on this "hierarchy"? Is it roughly in the order they appear in nf_tables_commit() after step 3? It appears it might be mostly already. If it isn't already, would it be reasonable to re-order them? Would you suggest a different order? (snip GET bits, that's now clear, thank you) > > 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. Would the generation change id be useful outside the kernel? What exactly does it look like? I don't quite understand the genmask purpose. - RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> Sr. S/W Engineer, Kernel Security, Base Operating Systems Remote, Ottawa, Red Hat Canada IRC: rgb, SunRaycer Voice: +1.647.777.2635, Internal: (81) 32635
