From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sphereful.sorra.shikadi.net (sphereful.sorra.shikadi.net [52.63.116.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54EFA263C8A for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2025 01:52:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=52.63.116.147 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745373168; cv=none; b=LH5vSlU6DpCdHYTKwgQxgvNO2E+5KaLwvI8jdICIlwfW5XJ3YZBD9XTSsBBpGsRWDu6LbLdAd6OiqDlnLy7kyV8pLTZytiKXerWUrg2rbQzmtqnVVf/r3QFW+swWO2yoHqb3hhgPO2dzuGWzhTkiK9gS6Kh6DGUYUPPxGZBCOYs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1745373168; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WDsnd/PUX0EmQ4AuyCzlZaHdYgZa0I108KMIiyfjDlo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RReGYgqmzlRZVNiJPMbPdRQpywjAcGoJPvyvdZ2uIKBrhgJTMvRZzS0oIhnZs9KLqOaf41/700cuqN4S1Cs6QTqYCTuwSvlnzARhO+qPoKKSqDGiH+9VeQaXmAPsyyFbossWYE9IOX/vlwshlGfpYlfVSP8I3iMnhuDdqeAeDTU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=shikadi.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=shikadi.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=shikadi.net header.i=@shikadi.net header.b=qU8z30FY; arc=none smtp.client-ip=52.63.116.147 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=shikadi.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=shikadi.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=shikadi.net header.i=@shikadi.net header.b="qU8z30FY" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shikadi.net ; s=since20200425; h=MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Sender: Reply-To:Cc:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References; bh=cX6ZpyZzgXtuYDn3+oLWAOh4YYQ20OANAmowBbGPi9c=; b=qU8z30FYjkO/mAd6fcJRET7gWd oZOAkAvZ/z1mJInsGxzoMQf1q+M2xLltdNOon5mkLZQkp4PvFrnkBQSwXW+PB2lbcanRXl8fYbC1I xeg3luQJRSmLYpl1l1++xv+tL4hFmmeoDYl6mIAAi+3r/sroPWlkiyHU5m/COeBWAdzqsGkbqg+Jf 1acud0v4+RMKAq1Hg33fbx/VbkycPoYXSh/2EEtemGU7VSH4CeowqS03Ad3gGUm3G6ZAl+KGsAi6f t9RtziKAWXb1b1LnUcywWX0FyF7UjI9tmdj0R8deUBnqTic3+aoTdSqv6mRUH189UNw8JPiytbOr3 rWLGn0Ng==; Received: by sphereful.sorra.shikadi.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1u7Ob1-0000IV-1m for netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:08:15 +1000 Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 11:08:12 +1000 From: Adam Nielsen To: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Bug: iptables -L and -Z at the same time now refuses other options Message-ID: <20250423110812.61e2ecf0@gnosticus> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.48; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I don't have a Bugzilla account so would someone mind logging this bug for me? I just updated iptables and now this command fails: $ iptables -L -v -n -x -Z iptables v1.8.11 (legacy): Illegal option `--numeric' with this command The manpage says that it is valid to use -Z with -L, which displays the values before zeroing them. However the latest iptables release doesn't allow you to specify -n if you are including -Z, which means if you want to display AND zero the counters at the same time, you can't have the raw numeric values shown. It works fine if you omit -Z but then you end up losing precision, having to run two commands (one to show the counters and then another one to zero them, with any change in the counters occurring between the two commands lost). If you remove the -n option, it then also complains about -x: $ iptables -L -v -x -Z iptables v1.8.11 (legacy): Illegal option `--exact' with this command This used to work so hopefully it's a small bug that can be easily fixed. It looks like while -L and -Z are still permitted at the same time, most of the options for -L are now being incorrectly refused if -Z is also specified. Many thanks, Adam. (Not subscribed, please CC)