Bug#935857: nftables: improvement for nft settings

2019-08-28 Thread Arturo Borrero Gonzalez
Control: tags -1 wontfix

On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:30:51 -0400 westlake  wrote:
> Package: nftables
> Version: 0.9.1-2~bpo10+1
> Severity: important
> 
> there's a question on where firewall rules are supposed to be stored 
> when it comes to nft on debian,
> 
> A user looking at nft's systemd service will notice that rules are 
> stored in /etc/nftables.conf
> 
> Nftables.conf needs to have the header "#!/usr/sbin/nft -f"
> 
> but why not make it simpler for users and instead put the nft command 
> outside of this file?  .conf files are not supposed to store executables 
> at the header, that's non-intuitive and imho not a good idea.
> 
> other distributions simply keep rules only in this file without any 
> confusing header executable..
> 
> this also makes it non-standard , .conf files are not highly not 
> regarded to be treated as scripting executables...
> 
> 
> 

The file extension can be arbitrary, i.e, it will work with either .nft or .conf
or .cnf or whatever. File extension is used here only to help understand which
kind of file is this.

The shebang in the top of the file is to allow you to use those files as
executable scripts, i.e, to run them like "./nftables-ruleset.nft" or "bash
nftables-ruleset.nft".

Debian provides by default a /etc/nftables.conf file which you can use to put
your firewall rules, which is in turn read by the systemd service.

I don't see any actionable here, closing bug now.

Thanks for the report though!.



Bug#935857: nftables: improvement for nft settings

2019-08-26 Thread westlake

Package: nftables
Version: 0.9.1-2~bpo10+1
Severity: important

there's a question on where firewall rules are supposed to be stored 
when it comes to nft on debian,


A user looking at nft's systemd service will notice that rules are 
stored in /etc/nftables.conf


Nftables.conf needs to have the header "#!/usr/sbin/nft -f"

but why not make it simpler for users and instead put the nft command 
outside of this file?  .conf files are not supposed to store executables 
at the header, that's non-intuitive and imho not a good idea.


other distributions simply keep rules only in this file without any 
confusing header executable..


this also makes it non-standard , .conf files are not highly not 
regarded to be treated as scripting executables...