From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Phil Oester Subject: [RFC][PATCH] nftables: add slash to chain syntax Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:20:23 -0800 Message-ID: <20131130232022.GA23206@home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180]:53937 "EHLO mail-pd0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751196Ab3K3XUX (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Nov 2013 18:20:23 -0500 Received: by mail-pd0-f180.google.com with SMTP id q10so15659584pdj.39 for ; Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:20:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from home (cpe-98-154-84-14.socal.res.rr.com. [98.154.84.14]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id tu6sm111604259pbc.41.2013.11.30.15.20.21 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 30 Nov 2013 15:20:22 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: The current syntax when handling chains seems counterintuitive to me. I would expect that "add chain" would have the name of the chain directly after the keyword "chain". But instead, the name of the table is there, with the chain after. I think a better syntax might be this: add chain / which seems clearer to me. And it has the added benefit of following the "everything is a file" paradigm. Who knows - maybe someday we can add a sysfs interface for nftables, and this will fit nicely within a tree: nftables tables chains rules Thoughts? Attached patch is a general proof of concept. Phil