From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mr Dash Four <mr.dash.four@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ipset: change 'iface' part in hash:net,iface set
Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:03:25 +0100
Message-ID: <4FF9D97D.7040309@googlemail.com>
References: <cover.1341525006.git.mr.dash.four@googlemail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207060947530.14535@blackhole.kfki.hu> <4FF736FE.8030109@googlemail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207062138140.16055@blackhole.kfki.hu> <4FF74868.3070303@googlemail.com> <CAHo-OowHXH9f526QQc4Ln5_P_Osdm1Q_RrBkw83hSGj=oES5ww@mail.gmail.com> <4FF74D5C.6060909@googlemail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207062243080.16055@blackhole.kfki.hu> <4FF752F0.3010007@googlemail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207062319130.16055@blackhole.kfki.hu> <4FF765E7.6020809@googlemail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207071646130.17386@blackhole.kfki.hu> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207071821560.17542@blackhole.kfki.hu> <4FF9852C.7080201@googlemail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207082051150.19776@blackhole.kfki.hu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Netfilter Core Team <netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@netfilter.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@trash.net>
To: Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@blackhole.kfki.hu>
Return-path: <netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:35010 "EHLO
	mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751916Ab2GHTDf (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 8 Jul 2012 15:03:35 -0400
Received: by wgbdr13 with SMTP id dr13so10780858wgb.1
        for <netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org>; Sun, 08 Jul 2012 12:03:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207082051150.19776@blackhole.kfki.hu>
Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netfilter-devel.vger.kernel.org>


> I repeat it as many times it's required. The rules
>
> iptables -A INPUT -m set --match-set list1 src,src -j ACCEPT
> iptables -A INPUT -m set --match-set list1 src,in -j ACCEPT
>
> would produce different results and that's unacceptable.
>   
Why not?