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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFFFC43381 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EDA364F57 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229996AbhCRMAd (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:00:33 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50492 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229874AbhCRMAW (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:00:22 -0400 Received: from orbyte.nwl.cc (orbyte.nwl.cc [IPv6:2001:41d0:e:133a::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4735C06174A for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 05:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from n0-1 by orbyte.nwl.cc with local (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1lMrK7-0008Hz-7G; Thu, 18 Mar 2021 13:00:19 +0100 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 13:00:19 +0100 From: Phil Sutter To: Florian Westphal Cc: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH nft 6/6] src: allow arbitary chain name in implicit rule add case Message-ID: <20210318120019.GH6306@orbyte.nwl.cc> Mail-Followup-To: Phil Sutter , Florian Westphal , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org References: <20210316234039.15677-1-fw@strlen.de> <20210316234039.15677-7-fw@strlen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210316234039.15677-7-fw@strlen.de> Sender: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 12:40:39AM +0100, Florian Westphal 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? 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. ;) Cheers, Phil