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 77C78C3A5A7 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 13:19:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229662AbiLHNTu (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2022 08:19:50 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42530 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229561AbiLHNTt (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2022 08:19:49 -0500 Received: from orbyte.nwl.cc (orbyte.nwl.cc [IPv6:2001:41d0:e:133a::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B36443AD5 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 05:19:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from n0-1 by orbyte.nwl.cc with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1p3GoU-0004Kw-Aa; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 14:19:46 +0100 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 14:19:46 +0100 From: Phil Sutter To: Pablo Neira Ayuso Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Florian Westphal Subject: Re: [iptables PATCH 4/7] nft: Fix match generator for '! -i +' Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: Phil Sutter , Pablo Neira Ayuso , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Florian Westphal References: <20221201163916.30808-1-phil@nwl.cc> <20221201163916.30808-5-phil@nwl.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 01:23:56PM +0100, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2022 at 05:39:13PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote: > > It's actually nonsense since it will never match, but iptables accepts > > it and the resulting nftables rule must behave identically. Reuse the > > solution implemented into xtables-translate (by commit e179e87a1179e) > > and turn the above match into 'iifname INVAL/D'. > > Maybe starting bailing out in iptables-nft when ! -i + is used at > ruleset load time? > > As you mentioned, this rule is really useless / never matching. Are you fine with doing it in legacy, too? Cheers, Phil