From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] netfilter: nf_tables: improvements for the existing transaction approach Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 15:47:25 +0200 Message-ID: <20130520134725.GA20912@localhost> References: <1369054843-14591-1-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> <1369054843-14591-2-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: tomasz.bursztyka@linux.intel.com, kaber@trash.net To: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:59296 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756270Ab3ETNra (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2013 09:47:30 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1369054843-14591-2-git-send-email-pablo@netfilter.org> Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:00:43PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > * One transaction comes in one batch packet composed of several > netlink messages from user-space. > > * All rule updates are handled as transactions. > > * No need for explicit begin, commit and abort commands. We seem to need an explicit commit operation, we still have to support iptables-restore -t, in that case the rule-set update is not applied. This is supported with the current approach but this RFC does not cover that case. I'm going to give it another try to re-spin to this.