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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham 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 3C89AC3A5A8 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 19:17:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1837522CF7 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 19:17:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731832AbfIDTRX (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:17:23 -0400 Received: from correo.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:35144 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730197AbfIDTRX (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Sep 2019 15:17:23 -0400 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CF4303D02 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 21:17:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAAAEB7FF9 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 21:17:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix, from userid 99) id B0301DA72F; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 21:17:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73882D2B1F; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 21:17:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from 192.168.1.97 (192.168.1.97) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int); Wed, 04 Sep 2019 21:17:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/550/antivirus1-rhel7.int) Received: from us.es (sys.soleta.eu [212.170.55.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: 1984lsi) by entrada.int (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 518704265A5A; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 21:17:17 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 21:17:18 +0200 X-SMTPAUTHUS: auth mail.us.es From: Pablo Neira Ayuso To: Phil Sutter , netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Garver Subject: Re: [PATCH nft] tests: shell: check that rule add with index works with echo Message-ID: <20190904191718.kzgbqdsgdjctqqli@salvia> References: <20190903232713.14394-1-eric@garver.life> <20190904081337.GH25650@orbyte.nwl.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190904081337.GH25650@orbyte.nwl.cc> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: netfilter-devel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 10:13:37AM +0200, Phil Sutter wrote: > Pablo, > > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 07:27:13PM -0400, Eric Garver wrote: > > If --echo is used the rule cache will not be populated. This causes > > rules added using the "index" keyword to be simply appended to the > > chain. The bug was introduced in commit 3ab02db5f836 ("cache: add > > NFT_CACHE_UPDATE and NFT_CACHE_FLUSHED flags"). > > > > Signed-off-by: Eric Garver > > --- > > I think the issue is in cache_evaluate(). It sets the flags to > > NFT_CACHE_FULL and then bails early, but I'm not sure of the best way to > > fix it. So I'll start by submitting a test case. :) > > In 3ab02db5f836a ("cache: add NFT_CACHE_UPDATE and NFT_CACHE_FLUSHED > flags"), you introduced NFT_CACHE_UPDATE to control whether > rule_evaluate() should call rule_cache_update(), probably assuming the > latter function merely changes cache depending on current command. In > fact, this function also links rules if needed (see call to > link_rules()). > > The old code you replaced also did not always call rule_cache_update(), > but that was merely for sanity: If cache doesn't contain rules, there is > no point in updating it with added/replaced/removed rules. The implicit > logic is if we saw a rule command with 'index' reference, cache would be > completed up to rule level (because of the necessary index to handle > translation). > > I'm not sure why you introduced NFT_CACHE_UPDATE in the first place, but > following my logic (and it seems to serve no other purpose) I would set > that flag whenever NFT_CACHE_RULE_BIT gets set. So IMHO, > NFT_CACHE_UPDATE is redundant. Please, just go ahead simplify this in case you found a way to do it. Thanks.