Hi,
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 08:27:33AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Thursday 2022-10-06 02:28, Phil Sutter wrote:
>
> >All one's netmasks are a trivial default, no point in printing them.
> >
> >@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ static void __NETMAP_print(const void *ip, const struct xt_entry_target *target,
> > bits = xtables_ip6mask_to_cidr(&a);
> > if (bits < 0)
> > printf("/%s", xtables_ip6addr_to_numeric(&a));
> >- else
> >+ else if (bits < sizeof(a) * 8)
> > printf("/%d", bits);
>
> I would rather see it stay.
> - iproute2 also always prints the /128 suffix
> - test parsers need not special case the absence of /128
I get your point. Screen-scraping is also not uncommon among iptables
users, so care has to be taken when "optimizing" output.
OTOH we're a bit inconsistent: xtables_ip(6)mask_to_numeric() explicitly
omits output if it would print "/32" or "/128".
Maybe I'll just leave the code as-is and adjust only the test cases
instead?
> >--- a/extensions/libxt_MARK.c
> >@@ -242,7 +242,9 @@ static void mark_tg_save(const void *ip, const struct xt_entry_target *target)
> > {
> > const struct xt_mark_tginfo2 *info = (const void *)target->data;
> >
> >- printf(" --set-xmark 0x%x/0x%x", info->mark, info->mask);
> >+ printf(" --set-xmark 0x%x", info->mark);
> >+ if (info->mask != 0xffffffffU)
> >+ printf("/0x%x", info->mask);
>
> if (info->mask != UINT32_MAX)
ACK. I copied from mark_tg_print(), so that's a useful fix unrelated to
the discussion above.
Thanks, Phil
