From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Holger Eitzenberger Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: xt_hashlimit: handle iptables-restore of hash with same name Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 09:24:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20140815072443.GT3549@imap.eitzenberger.org> References: <1406004850-31336-1-git-send-email-johunt@akamai.com> <20140724084927.GB18404@breakpoint.cc> <53D28C97.9000009@akamai.com> <20140814140956.GA16567@imap.eitzenberger.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Josh Hunt , Patrick McHardy , Florian Westphal , Pablo Neira Ayuso , Jozsef Kadlecsik , "netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org" , "coreteam@netfilter.org" , Harald Welte To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:54990 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750706AbaHOHYs (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Aug 2014 03:24:48 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > >For case 2) the behaviour is unexpected: when using iptables-restore > >to update an already existing hashtable the updates are > >ignored. > > Well, in a way, this is expected. If ruletable A references hashtable > G and you restore ruletable B also referencing G, you don't > necessarily want to clear out G. I agree when having multiple rules accessing same hashtable. But on rule update it is a bug. I am fine maintaining the patch adressing the rule update, as I am aware of the change in behaviour for the other case. /Holger