Hi, Florian Westphal schrieb am 12.09.2023 12:27 (GMT +02:00): > Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) <regressions@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> On 12.09.23 00:57, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: >> > Userspace nftables v1.0.6 generates incorrect bytecode that hits a new >> > kernel check that rejects adding rules to bound chains. The incorrect >> > bytecode adds the chain binding, attach it to the rule and it adds the >> > rules to the chain binding. I have cherry-picked these three patches >> > for nftables v1.0.6 userspace and your ruleset restores fine. >> > [...] >> >> Hmmmm. Well, this sounds like a kernel regression to me that normally >> should be dealt with on the kernel level, as users after updating the >> kernel should never have to update any userspace stuff to continue what >> they have been doing before the kernel update. > > This is a combo of a userspace bug and this new sanity check that > rejects the incorrect ordering (adding rules to the already-bound > anonymous chain). > Out of curiosity, did the incorrect ordering or bytecode from the older userspace components actually lead to a wrong representation of the rules in the kernel or did the rules still work despite all that? Thanks, Timo
