Quan Tian <tianquan23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The NFTA_TABLE_USERDATA attribute was ignored on updates. The patch adds
> handling for it to support table comment updates.
One generic API question below. Pablo, please look at this too.
> case NFT_MSG_NEWTABLE:
> if (nft_trans_table_update(trans)) {
> - if (!(trans->ctx.table->flags & __NFT_TABLE_F_UPDATE)) {
> - nft_trans_destroy(trans);
> - break;
> + if (trans->ctx.table->flags & __NFT_TABLE_F_UPDATE) {
> + if (trans->ctx.table->flags & NFT_TABLE_F_DORMANT)
> + nf_tables_table_disable(net, trans->ctx.table);
> + trans->ctx.table->flags &= ~__NFT_TABLE_F_UPDATE;
> }
> - if (trans->ctx.table->flags & NFT_TABLE_F_DORMANT)
> - nf_tables_table_disable(net, trans->ctx.table);
> -
> - trans->ctx.table->flags &= ~__NFT_TABLE_F_UPDATE;
> + swap(trans->ctx.table->udata, nft_trans_table_udata(trans));
> + nf_tables_table_notify(&trans->ctx, NFT_MSG_NEWTABLE
AFAICS this means that if the table as udata attached, and userspace
makes an update request without a UDATA netlink attribute, we will
delete the existing udata.
Is that right?
My question is, should we instead leave the existing udata as-is and not
support removal, only replace?
