On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 11:48:51PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-06-13 at 13:33 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > 4.19-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > > > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > From: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > commit c9e6978e2725a7d4b6cd23b2facd3f11422c0643 upstream. > > [...] > > > > This turns out to cause a regression for nftables user-space versions > > older than v0.9.3, specifically before: > > > > commit a4ec053812610400b7a9e6c060d8b7589dedd5b1 > > Author: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed Oct 9 11:54:32 2019 +0200 > > > > segtree: always close interval in non-anonymous sets > > This is really fixing up userspace as the commit describes, otherwise > incremental updates are not possible on a set/map. > > > Should nft_set_rbtree detect and fix-up the bad set messages that > > nftables user-space used to send? > > Problem is that a non-anonymous set really needs close intervals, > otherwise incremental updates on it are not possible. > > It should be possible to backport a fix for such nftables version. > > I can see Debian 10 (Buster, oldoldstable) is using 0.9.0 but it was > discontinued in june 2022? But who is using such an old userspace version? Oh, I misread, it is still supported in oldoldstable in Debian. Then, userspace really needs this fix, because incremental updates on a set are not really possible. I can take a look and send a backport of this for nftables 0.9.0.
