Re: [PATCH v3 08/25] fwd: Allow FWD_DUAL_STACK_ANY flag to be passed directly to fwd_rule_add()

Nits: On Mon, 23 Mar 2026 18:37:15 +1100 David Gibson wrote:

fwd_rule_add() takes a flags parameter, but it only allows the FWD_WEAK and FWD_SCAN flags to be specified there. It doesn't allow the FWD_DUAL_STACK_ANY flag to be set, instead expecting a [*] address to be indicated by passing NULL as @addr.

However, for upcoming dynamic rule updates, it's more convenient to be able to explicitly pass FWD_DUAL_STACK_ANY along with an address of ::. Allow that mode of calling.

Signed-off-by: David Gibson --- fwd.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fwd.c b/fwd.c index 3395a28e..d73b7ca7 100644 --- a/fwd.c +++ b/fwd.c @@ -362,18 +362,21 @@ void fwd_rule_add(struct fwd_table *fwd, uint8_t proto, uint8_t flags, in_port_t first, in_port_t last, in_port_t to) { /* Flags which can be set from the caller */ - const uint8_t allowed_flags = FWD_WEAK | FWD_SCAN; + const uint8_t allowed_flags = FWD_WEAK | FWD_SCAN | FWD_DUAL_STACK_ANY; unsigned num = (unsigned)last - first + 1; struct fwd_rule *new; unsigned i, port;

assert(!(flags & ~allowed_flags)); -

Spurious change, I think? The extra newline here looks good for readability. Maybe we should group the second assert with this one?

if (fwd->count >= ARRAY_SIZE(fwd->rules)) die("Too many port forwarding ranges"); if ((fwd->sock_count + num) > ARRAY_SIZE(fwd->socks)) die("Too many listening sockets");

+ /* Passing a non-wildcard address with DUAL_STACK_ANY is a bug */

Extra whitespace after DUAL_STACK_ANY.

+ assert(!(flags & FWD_DUAL_STACK_ANY) || !addr || + inany_equals(addr, &inany_any6)); + /* Check for any conflicting entries */ for (i = 0; i < fwd->count; i++) { char newstr[INANY_ADDRSTRLEN], rulestr[INANY_ADDRSTRLEN];

-- Stefano