From: Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>
To: Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc>, Florian Westphal <fw@strlen.de>,
netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nft 6/6] src: allow arbitary chain name in implicit rule add case
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 13:37:24 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210318123724.GB22603@breakpoint.cc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210318120019.GH6306@orbyte.nwl.cc>
Phil Sutter <phil@nwl.cc> wrote:
> > Another alternative is to deprecate implicit rule add altogether
> > so users would have to move to 'nft add rule ...'.
>
> Isn't this required for nested syntax? I didn't check, but does your
> arbitrary table/chain name support work also when restoring a ruleset in
> that nested syntax?
Whats 'nested syntax'?
You mean "table bla { chain foo {"?
> Another interesting aspect might be arbitrary set
> names - 'set' is also a valid keyword used in rules, this fact killed my
> approach with start conditions. ;)
Right, arbitrary set names are needed as well, I forgot about them.
It should be possible by using two "set" rules in flex.
One in the INITIAL scope (to handle set bla {), and one in
'rule' or 'expression scope'.
The former would switch to an exclusive start condition (expect
STRING, close condition on '{', just like CHAIN is handled here.
The latter would not change state and just return SET token.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-18 12:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-16 23:40 [PATCH nft 0/6] arbirary table/chain names Florian Westphal
2021-03-16 23:40 ` [PATCH nft 1/6] scanner: add support for scope nesting Florian Westphal
2021-03-16 23:40 ` [PATCH nft 2/6] scanner: counter: move to own scope Florian Westphal
2021-03-16 23:40 ` [PATCH nft 3/6] scanner: log: " Florian Westphal
2021-03-16 23:40 ` [PATCH nft 4/6] scanner: support arbitary table names Florian Westphal
2021-03-16 23:40 ` [PATCH nft 5/6] scanner: support arbitrary chain names Florian Westphal
2021-03-16 23:40 ` [PATCH nft 6/6] src: allow arbitary chain name in implicit rule add case Florian Westphal
2021-03-18 12:00 ` Phil Sutter
2021-03-18 12:37 ` Florian Westphal [this message]
2021-03-18 13:51 ` Phil Sutter
2021-03-18 13:20 ` Florian Westphal
2021-03-24 10:58 ` Florian Westphal
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210318123724.GB22603@breakpoint.cc \
--to=fw@strlen.de \
--cc=netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phil@nwl.cc \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).