From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9513C433F5 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:43:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229612AbiDLXpV (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2022 19:45:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36322 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230426AbiDLXpO (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Apr 2022 19:45:14 -0400 Received: from Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc (Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:520::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25EB813E86 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2022 16:30:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fw by Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nePxn-0003FP-BT; Wed, 13 Apr 2022 01:30:24 +0200 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 01:30:23 +0200 From: Florian Westphal To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Cc: Florian Westphal , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH nftables 0/9] nftables: add support for wildcard string as set keys Message-ID: <20220412233023.GF10279@breakpoint.cc> References: <20220409135832.17401-1-fw@strlen.de> <20220412224335.GB10279@breakpoint.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > Yes, but its like this also before my patch, there are several > > test failures on s390 with nft master. > > Why is the listing being reordered? No idea, I only saw that this reordering happens, i did not have time to investigate so far. > > I will have a look, so far I only checked that my patch > > series does not cause any additional test failures, and the only > > reason why the new test fails is the output reorder on s390. > > This is also related to the set description patchset that Phil posted, > correct? No, I don't even know what patchset you are talking about. Is it because of failing pything tests because the debug output has endianess issues? If so, not related. > If you consider that adding remaining features is feasible, > incrementally should be fine. Hmm, if there is a technical reason as to why it does not work, do you think we should hold it back? It lookes like filter on "{ eth0, ppp* }" works fine as-is. I thought that something like "eth0-eth42" would also be doable, by treating both as 128bit bit-string. Don't see what prevents "ppp* . 80" from working from a technical pov. So, I *think* its fine to add the pure ifname set support now and add the rest incrementally.