From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.netfilter.org (mail.netfilter.org [217.70.190.124]) (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 12696383C82 for ; Mon, 20 Apr 2026 19:07:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776712027; cv=none; b=gXsaeIs9bo/dUG+GcmaifvaBzJQlpOaFcZEVC8kvAlP9TVxjqY08G5ayFAE/ABtoT5fube2YshvT8+otVPztF+m9MMUhIM94vyf5Gyb8T6qtz5XhoRtQSq46trzSi63lQu2g1iXESXA+REeeTFrCnyHyk6XeSwRRCN+giAQ3FKU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776712027; c=relaxed/simple; bh=F9+dTYu+EazAQoSXhVZH7rj/z/CisEZPiNZKW0e7iG8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FtnOgTGT7H9fYWEqRn3caqMFJ+xw82T82PKFrjCub0yDSBdtveqJlxIjAMm20uqfJiYhx6Wz2x4qBBDY3xWrdZdGsBjBOFCehie1KUgLOd/jszOive4ndBQdJzzRDLq1xpNA67riUzZGMqTtpE0mxs0N8WJpL+AbEa93062bwCI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b=E/Y8YaMa; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.70.190.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=netfilter.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=netfilter.org header.i=@netfilter.org header.b="E/Y8YaMa" Received: from netfilter.org (mail-agni [217.70.190.124]) by mail.netfilter.org (Postfix) with UTF8SMTPSA id 1635460180; Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:07:04 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfilter.org; s=2025; t=1776712024; bh=jmhkzg2lAwutHpq2MKp5lP2mADtXf+Px4I5BolkCzog=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=E/Y8YaMaHLyiOHBZpbNnuyC0QVQ6zxcsgM8Bk0tDZgcwmdcZeNLUS1Ixv76Ghr5Q9 lvJ+5qXy9fBLpkygKZtvl+sxOmj8ZxKxvmofo73tnY27C1U4vFZNv87zzRZMQo8RH1 p6qi20ldbYAqxPUs4oO6YlQdTXqmSherk+MlzDZjiyRe4Hgay2kQ3kiXujVXBQnVV4 3BcTXCU7oYkXOWCXNvOO3Iy6CuEpKsXYtkiacf4QoQ+kDZFt/fPMC3q3C9xd4hioRi hPV+FlPlj/JhlOH89loJHY8QlmUVecXRdMpzZ/FCAzpxy0Vxb8UTZxgiiRe1RySWtr ROUGR9/PhMkOQ== Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 21:07:01 +0200 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Florian Westphal Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH nf] netfilter: nft_compat: run checkentry() from .validate Message-ID: References: <20260420174227.13087-1-pablo@netfilter.org> 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=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 08:53:19PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote: > Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > Your approach duplicates .checkentry in some way, you have to make > > sure what your .validate and .checkentry perform the same check, ie. > > they are in sync. > > Thats why I updated the affected .checkentry functions to use > the validate functions internally -- to make sure the code is called > even for classic iptables. > > > If this needs to be generalized further, maybe checkentry() needs to > > extended to improve integration with nftables. > > I hope not. But I don't care, if you prefer your patch then so be it. I can toss this patch if you prefer, I will post it complete then decide what to do. > I just find it sad we duplicate efforts all the time. I thought I could provide a more self-contained approach for this nft_compat specific bug.