On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 02:39:35AM +0200, Stefano Brivio wrote:
> Nits only (pretty much for the whole series, even though I have
> slightly more substantial remarks for 3/5 and 5/5, so I thought I'd
> point all of them out):
> 
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2026 16:56:07 +1000
> David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> 
> > The semantics of --host-lo-to-ns-lo as described in the man page don't
> > quite make sense: It says without the option forwarded packets will appear
> > to come _from_ the guest's public address, which is not usually true.
> > Instead the packets will arrive *to* the guest's public address.  The exact
> > semantics are also a bit confusing in general.
> > 
> > Rewrite both the man page and code to clarify this.  The new rule is that
> > it redirects connections addressed to a host loopback address to the same
> > loopback address in the guest.  This is notionally different from what we
> > had in two ways:
> >   * We can now deliver to nonstandard loopback addresses within the guest,
> >     not just the default one.  This is technically a behavioural change,
> >     but I think will be less surprising behaviour.
> >   * The decision is now made on the original _destination_ address, rather
> >     than source address.  That's different theoreically, but not in
> 
> theoretically

Oops, fixed.

[snip]
> >  .TP
> >  .BR \-\-host-lo-to-ns-lo
> > -If specified, connections forwarded with \fB\-t\fR and \fB\-u\fR from
> > -the host's loopback address will appear on the loopback address in the
> > -guest as well.  Without this option such forwarded packets will appear
> > -to come from the guest's public address.
> > +If specified, connections to a host loopback address forwarded with
> > +\fB\-t\fR or \fB\-u\fR will be delivered to the same loopback address
> > +on the guest.  Without this option such connections are forwarded to
> > +the guest's public address.  This option is incompatible with
> > +\fB--no-splice\fR.
> 
> Pre-existing, but still somewhat confusing: this is one part of the man
> page where we don't specify "guest or namespace", we just use "guest",
> and yet it's never a guest, it's always a namespace.
> 
> Should we just change all the occurrences of "guest" to "namespace" in
> this paragraph?

Good idea, done.  For future reference, in cases where it's less
obvious which namespace we're talking about, how do you feel about
"guest namespace".

-- 
David Gibson (he or they)	| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you, not the other way
				| around.
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson