From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc [91.216.245.30]) (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 2736F32F774 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 11:28:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.216.245.30 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761737304; cv=none; b=OOsKWBnWphPOgtqIOmpuDQTkvhEWzmsRPCIWwPQWwwDj6E/vUdZvxHs+6E1RWNfTGoJ0+iJZbbcw9e8BGRDWWzxYaDags5HTPdYE3l+o6GecYficG1wfgxRGLdricqhD4XPbl77H35hRERfuIw4bl791GwzpWik8eteb2YLppR0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761737304; c=relaxed/simple; bh=edOrlLoH+uuAlFhn0Eusu3el3MSGfqqoGDr26ePkvuE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=n4cUkTiVW4AMzQ/XNcKJgVyYPQiLN4sHXwuCbTjSBFAd6kCQwOgka6/diCF0Qe7W5slO3X1gvjJDbNu35JQ5K1zdiuVpp51jajt8cNTc+f7itL9dxA76sjL1Obm3Pl2CThFgtwZALUwYEkCnIiIVCcUIlAILSLsZNa/85mMVEpk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=strlen.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=strlen.de; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.216.245.30 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=strlen.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=strlen.de Received: by Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 91824602E2; Wed, 29 Oct 2025 12:28:15 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 12:28:15 +0100 From: Florian Westphal To: Christoph Anton Mitterer Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH nft v6 0/3] doc: miscellaneous improvements Message-ID: References: <20251028145436.29415-1-fw@strlen.de> <0e0112a16c881a1072c3d9dcba4d323b608674b0.camel@christoph.anton.mitterer.name> 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-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0e0112a16c881a1072c3d9dcba4d323b608674b0.camel@christoph.anton.mitterer.name> Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > IMO that makes things a bit more convoluted, first explaining who can > call who, then where evaluation continues, then again explaining who > can call who. I swapped the two sentences. > I would however suggest to reconsider in prarticular "all traffic will > be blocked". > "all traffic" is... well "all traffic"... but the decision is just > about one packet, ain't it? > Also "blocked" is IMO a bit fuzzy. Is the term used before? I'd rather > interpret it as some generic term that could be either drop or reject > or similar, but here the example was particularly about when any chain > uses drop as policy. What about this: Thus, if any base chain uses drop as its policy, the same base chain (or a regular chain directly or indirectly called by it) must contain at least one *accept* rule to avoid all traffic from getting dropped. > IMO it doesn't make things easier for a beginner, if one basically > has to read through everything to find all information. I added a reference. Also keep in mind that nftables will already tell you about terminal statement not at end. nft add rule ip f c drop counter Error: Statement after terminal statement has no effect > Als, "or a user-defined", ain't the base chains user-defined, > too? Thanks, user-defined is iptables-legacy lingo (base chains always exist), old habit.