Re: [PATCH nft 0/3] typeof incremental enhancements

[Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>]

Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org> wrote:
> > If its not a problem to display a non-restoreable ruleset
> > (e.g. unspecific 'type integer' shown as set keys) in that case
> > then the interger,width part can be omitted indeed.
> > 
> > Let me know.  For concatenations, we will be unable to show
> > a proper ruleset without the udata info anyway (concatentations
> > do not work at the moment for non-specific types anyway though).
> 
> Indeed, what scenario are you considering that set udata might be
> missing?

Any non-nft client/direct netlink user.

> We could still print it in such a case, even if we cannot parse it if
> you are willing to deal with. Just to provide some information to the
> user.

If udata is missing, we only have the type available.

If its a type with unspecific length (string, integer) we can use
the key length to get the bit size.

But for concatenation case, it might be ambigiuos.

So, I would remove the "type integer, length" format again so in
such case we would print

type string
or
type integer.

Users won't see this non-restoreable ruleset listed as long as the udata
is there.