Hi Pablo, On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 05:28:39PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:16:53AM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > > Expected behaviour in both variants is: > > > > * Print help without error, append extension help if -m and/or -j > > options are present > > * Indicate lack of permissions in an error message for anything else > > > > With iptables-nft, this was broken basically from day 1. Shared use of > > do_parse() then somewhat broke legacy: it started complaining about > > inability to create a lock file. > > > > Fix this by making iptables-nft assume extension revision 0 is present > > if permissions don't allow to verify. This is consistent with legacy. > > > > Second part is to exit directly after printing help - this avoids having > > to make the following code "nop-aware" to prevent privileged actions. > > On top of this patch, it should be possible to allow for some > nfnetlink command to be used from unpriviledged process. > > I'm attaching a sketch patch, it skips module autoload which is should > not be triggered by an unpriviledged process. > > This should allow for better help with -m/-j if the module is present. That's interesting. What's the use-case? With my patch, extension help text printing works fine as unprivileged user. Does it allow to drop the "revision == 0 && EPERM" hack? Thanks, Phil
