On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 01:41:24AM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 10:40:22PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 05:39:10PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> > > Sadly, '-C' is in use already for --change-counters (even though
> > > ebtables-nft does not implement this), so add a long-option only. It is
> > > needed for xlate testsuite in replay mode, which will use '--check'
> > > instead of '-C'.
> >
> > Hm, yet another of those exotic deviations (from ip{6}tables) in
> > ebtables.
> >
> > This -C is not supported by ebtables-nft, right? If so,
> > according to manpage, ebtables -C takes start_nr[:end_nr].
> >
> > Maybe there is a chance to get this aligned with other ip{6}tables
> > tools by checking if optarg is available? Otherwise, really check the
> > ruleset?
> >
> > BTW, I'm re-reading the ebtables manpage, not sure how this feature -C
> > was supposed to be used. Do you understand the usecase?
>
> Yes, it's odd - so fits perfectly the rest of ebtables syntax. ;)
>
> There are two ways to use it:
>
> 1) ebtables -C <CHAIN> <RULENO> <PCNT> <BCNT>
> 2) ebtables -C <CHAIN> <PCNT> <BCNT> <RULESPEC>
>
> So I could check if the two parameters following the chain name are
> numbers or not to distinguish between --change-counters and --check, but
> it's ugly and with ebtables-nft not supporting one of them makes things
> actually worse.
>
> We need --check only for internal purposes, let's please just leave it
> like this - there are much more important things to work on.
OK, just an idea in case there is a need for getting ebtables more
aligned with other xtables userspace.
