On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 6:21 PM Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 11:39:41PM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 03:56:41PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > [...] > > > If it is a bug, please submit a fix for this as soon as possible Pablo. > > > > Thanks for your support, but I can take over, too. The number of > > notifications emitted even for a small ruleset is not ideal, also. It's > > just a bit sad that I ACKed the patch already and so it went out the > > door. Florian, can we still put a veto there? > > Phil, kernel was crashing after your patch, this was resulting in a > kernel panic when running tests here. I had to revert your patches > locally to keep running tests. > > Please, just send an incremental fix to adjust the idx, revert will > leave things in worse state. If we can get a fix out soon then I'm fine with that, if we can't get a fix out soon then a revert may be wise. > Audit does not show chains either, which is not very useful to locate > what where exactly the rules have been reset, but that can probably > discussed in net-next. Richard provided a way to extend this if audit > maintainer find it useful too. Richard was correct in saying that new fields must be added to the end of the record. The only correction I would make to Richard's comments is that we tend to prefer that if a field is present in a record, it is always present in a record; if there is no useful information to log in that field, a "?" can be substituted for the value (e.g. "nftfield=?"). -- paul-moore.com
