On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:51:02PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 04:15:50PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: [...] > I find it sensible to protect a table only as long as the owning process > remains alive, at least to prevent zombie tables. This raises the > question what shall happen to orphan tables upon 'nft flush ruleset'? > Flush them like a regular one? I think so, otherwise such orphaned table will become an inmortal zombie that noone can remove :) [...] > > I think this 'persist' flag provides semantics the described above, > > that is: > > > > - keep it in place if process goes away. > > - allow to retake ownership. > > I'll give it a try. Thanks.
