On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 11:11:42AM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > Merging threads. > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:55:04AM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > [...] > > > I think this more or less a summary of what we discussed in the NFWS. > > > > Pablo, I think you're mixing up two things here: > > > > This "support dump and load of compat expression" feature is to sanitize > > the current situation with up to date iptables and nftables. > > OK, then the problem we discuss is mixing iptables-nft and nftables. > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 10:47:48AM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > [...] > > > At this time I'd rather like a time machine to prevent nft_compat.c from > > > getting merged :-( > > > > If you do, please convince Pablo to not push iptables commit 384958620a. > > I think it opened the can of worms we're trying to confine here. > > It could be worst, if iptables-nft would not be in place, then old > iptables-legacy and new nftables rules would have no visibility each > other. > > With iptables-nft we have a way to move forward: > > - Replace nft_compat by native expressions from iptables-nft. > - Extend iptables-nft to understand more complex expressions, worst > case dump a native representation. > > Why don't we just move ahead this path instead of spinning around the > compat layer? This only requires userspace updates on iptables-nft. Sure! I'm just picking low hanging fruits first. With even translation support being still incomplete, I fear it will take a while until the tools are fluent enough for this to not matter anymore. And then there's still nftables without libxtables support. Cheers, Phil
