On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 01:18:44PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 01:12:26PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:46:43PM +0100, Florian Westphal wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Yes, that's fine with me. Now what about translated expressions? Can we > > apply my warning patch until at least the majority of them is understood > > by iptables? > > Which one are you refering to? This one: Subject: [nft PATCH] Warn for tables with compat expressions in rules Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 17:31:07 +0200 Message-Id: <20221012153107.24574-1-phil@xxxxxx>
