Re: [nf_tables] pipapo: inserting an interval that strictly contains an existing one is accepted; rbtree rejects the same insert

Wei Fang <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 6:20 PM Florian Westphal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Wei Fang <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > -------------------
> > > expected: both backends reject the overlapping insert (-EEXIST)
> >
> > Why?

Maybe I was too terse.  Default behaviour for interval sets (Rbtree) is
auto-merge: if we have 10.0.0.1-10.0.0.5, add for 10.0.0.2 will work
(no-op).

Behaviour for pipapo is to accept a new element that is fully contained
in an existing entry (no add takes place).

Sure, it could be changed to reject but that would alter user-visible
behaviour, so I would expect complaints.