Re: [PATCH 12/18] conf: Don't be strict about exclusivity of forwarding mode

[Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@redhat.com>]

On Thu, 9 Apr 2026 10:12:07 +1000
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 08, 2026 at 11:40:16PM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> > On Tue,  7 Apr 2026 13:16:24 +1000
> > David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> >   
> > > Currently as well as building the forwarding tables, conf() maintains a
> > > "forwarding mode" value for each protocol and direction.  This prevents,
> > > for example "-t all" and "-t 40000" being given on the same command line.
> > > 
> > > This restriction predates the forwarding table and is no longer really
> > > necessary.  Remove the restriction, instead doing our best to apply all the
> > > given options simultaneously.
> > > 
> > >  * Many combinations previously disallowed will still be disallowed because
> > >    of conflicts between the specific generated rules, e.g.
> > >         -t all -t 8888
> > >    (because -t all already listens on port 8888)
> > >  * Some new combinations are now allowed and will work, e.g.
> > >         -t all -t 40000
> > >    because 'all' excludes ephemeral ports (which includes 40000 on default
> > >    Linux configurations).  
> > 
> > This is slightly confusing though:
> > 
> > $ ./pasta -t auto -t 31337
> > Forwarding configuration conflict: TCP [*]:31337  =>  31337  versus TCP [*]:1-32767  =>  1-32767  (best effort) (auto-scan)  
> 
> You mean because the single port rule is redundant, but doesn't do
> something different, so not strictly speaking conflicting?

Right, yes. One might want to say something like "map all ports
automatically, but 31337 always", and that's not (much?) more
conflicting than "-t all -t 8888"... maybe.

> > but I don't see a practical way to "fix" it for the moment being, and
> > overall I'd say the new behaviour is better than the original one, so I
> > don't really care.  
> 
> Ok.

-- 
Stefano