[Bug 1438] New: nft generates wrong intervals for sets with auto-merge
bugzilla-daemon at netfilter.org
bugzilla-daemon at netfilter.org
Wed Jul 1 23:58:49 CEST 2020
https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1438
Bug ID: 1438
Summary: nft generates wrong intervals for sets with auto-merge
Product: nftables
Version: unspecified
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Debian GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: major
Priority: P5
Component: nft
Assignee: pablo at netfilter.org
Reporter: public_timo.s at silentcreek.de
Hi,
I'm relatively new to nftables, currently moving my iptables/ipset setups to
nftables. I did a few experiments with scripting sets and encountered the
following bug in nftables 0.9.0-2 (Debian 10) as well as 0.9.3-2 (Ubuntu
20.04).
If I have the following simple script to set up a set:
#!/usr/sbin/nft -f
add set inet filter myset { type ipv4_addr; flags interval; auto-merge }
add element inet filter myset { 192.168.0.0/24 }
add element inet filter myset { 192.168.0.2 }
add element inet filter myset { 192.168.1.0/24 }
add element inet filter myset { 192.168.1.100 }
After loading this script with `nft -f', I run `nft list set inet filter myset'
and the result looks like this:
table inet filter {
set myset {
type ipv4_addr
flags interval
auto-merge
elements = { 192.168.0.0/31, 192.168.0.2,
192.168.1.0-192.168.1.99, 192.168.1.100 }
}
}
Ouch! This is utterly wrong, obviously.
Please note that my experiments have shown that this bug occurs only if the
elements are added in individual `add element' statements in the script file.
If I put all elements in a single statement, the resulting set is correct, like
so:
add element inet filter myset { 192.168.0.0/24, 192.168.0.2, 192.168.1.0/24,
192.168.1.100 }
The resulting set is fine then and has only one element, as expected:
192.168.0.0/23
I understand that having multiple `add element' lines might not be ideal, but
the wiki doesn't suggest that this would be wrong (nor does `nft -cf'). Hence,
I consider this a major bug, since the auto-merged intervals do not at all
match what would be expected.
Cheers,
Timo
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.netfilter.org/pipermail/netfilter-buglog/attachments/20200701/9ec84db2/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the netfilter-buglog
mailing list