Phil Sutter <phil@xxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Then perhaps its better to do following path: 1. Try ->xlate(), if that fails, then print a 'breaking' format? As far as I understand the problem is the "# comment" - type syntax that makes nft just skip the incomplete rule, so perhaps just use invalid format? Example: counter packets 0 bytes 0 # name foo interval 250.0ms ewmalog 500.0ms Instead make this something like counter packets 0 bytes 0 nft_compat [ RATEEST name foo interval 250.0ms ewmalog 500.0ms ] # unsupported iptables-nft rule ? I'd like to avoid exposure in the frontend with compatible-restore-approach if possible.
