Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? For audit purposes I think enum nf_tables_msg_types is already in the most relevant order, the lower numbers being more imporant. So e.g. NEWTABLE would be more interesting than DELRULE, if both are in same batch. > > > 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? Yes, we already announce it to interested parties via nfnetlink. > What > exactly does it look like? Its just a u64 counter that gets incremented whenever there is a change. > I don't quite understand the genmask purpose. Thats an implementation detail only. When we process a transaction, changes to the ruleset are being made but they should not have any effect until the entire transaction is processed. So there are two 'generations' at any time: 1. The active ruleset 2. The future ruleset 2) is what is being changed/modified. When the transaction completes, then the future ruleset becomes the active ruleset. If the transaction has to be aborted, the pending changes are reverted and the genid/genmasks are not changed.
