Re: [BUG?] success of adding interval elements to map/set depends on order

On 26/06/02 18:47, Kerin Millar wrote:
> Hi Michal,
> 
>>
>> But if we swap the order of those two elements so the more narrow one is 
>> present earlier, the rules will load successfully. Same applies for 
>> manual adding via "nft add element". And same happens if it was a 
>> regular set instead of a map.
> 
> Given the absence of the auto-merge flag, overlapping elements are supposed to be rejected. The consistent behaviour would be to reject both orderings. That these rules can ever be loaded successfully is an unequivocal bug.

Yea, and auto-merge would make no sense in context of a map (for the 
record I did try that, but nft rightly complained it's not supported).

> 
> Speaking of which, there have been various bugs concerning sets and maps over the years. If I may ask, which version of Linux and nftables are you using?
> 

1.1.6 (on arch) as well as the older version shipped with debian13 
(think it was 1.1.3).