Re: Clarification of the procedure for filtering IP option fields

Hi,

On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 04:52:29PM +0300, Alexey Kashavkin wrote:
> Hello, 
> 
> I am still figuring out the syntax for adding rules to filter IP
> options. Please, if anyone has an understanding of how this works
> give at least a short reply.

This 'type' field is redundant.

> I understand how the exthdr expression works in the kernel code. But
> so far there is still a question about specifying the type field,
> what is the purpose of this field here? There is also a question
> about other fields, let's take for example the IP option LSRR, it
> has an addr field. I assume, knowing this option from RFC791 it
> specifies IP addresses, but in the case of nft it is not so, this
> field has datatype intereger.

Yes, this should be at least 32-bits.

> With length and ptr fields it is clear, but with addr it is not.
> Please write how it works, what value is substituted in the addr
> field.

I remember to have mentioned the limitations of this with Stephen
(only a few ip options can be matched), Stephen told me this was good
enough for his use case at the time.

I regret I did not push back harder on this.

This extension really needs more work.