Pablo Neira Ayuso <pa...@netfilter.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 04:51:30PM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 06:42:24PM +0800, Liping Zhang wrote: > > > # iptables-translate -A INPUT -m connlabel ! --label bit40 --set > > > nft add rule ip filter INPUT ct label set bit40 ct label and bit40 != > > > bit40 counter > > > > I think this logic is inverted, I mean: > > > > nft add rule ip filter INPUT ct label and bit40 != bit40 ct label set bit40 > > counter > > --------------------------- > > > > test should happen before set. > > BTW, why not simply translate this to: > > nft add rule ip filter INPUT ct label set bit40 counter
Its not the same as the bloated version. The set operation will only ever fail in case the conntrack doesn't have a label extension or is untracked/invalid, but if that is the case we get different results: nft add rule ip filter INPUT ct label set bit40 ct label and bit40 != bit40 counter -> counter Increments for every packet that lacks a conntrack, or the conntrack extension nft add rule ip filter INPUT ct label set bit40 counter -> counter Increments for every packet (we don't set NFT_BREAK anywhere in the setter). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
