Re: [PATCH v2 nft] parser: tcpopt: fix tcp option parsing with NUM + length field

[Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>]

Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de> wrote:
> Thomas Haller <thaller@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-12-06 at 12:38 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > > Thomas Haller <thaller@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Florian,
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2023-12-05 at 12:56 +0100, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > > > >  .../packetpath/dumps/tcp_options.nft          | 14 +++++++
> > > > 
> > > > is there a reason not to also generate a .json-nft file?
> > > 
> > > Yes, I am not adding more one-line monsters.
> > > 
> > > I'll add one once there is a solution in place that has human
> > > readable
> > > json dumps that don't fail validation because of identical but
> > > differently formatted output.
> > > 
> > 
> > What about the "[PATCH nft 0/2] pretty print .json-nft files" patches?
> 
> I'm fine with that. Phil? Pablo? This is re:
> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/netfilter-devel/patch/20231124124759.3269219-3-thaller@redhat.com/

What about making it so we NEVER compare json-nft at all?

Instead, feed the json-nft file to nft, then do a normal list-ruleset,
then compare that vs. normal .nft file.

This avoids any and all formatting issues and also avoids breakage when
the json-nft file is formatted differently.

Eg. postprocessing via json_pp won't match what this patch above
expects.