Hi,
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 02:07:23AM +0100, Stefano Brivio wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/src/set.c b/src/set.c
> index 78447c6..60a46d8 100644
> --- a/src/set.c
> +++ b/src/set.c
[...]
> @@ -361,6 +366,23 @@ nftnl_set_nlmsg_build_desc_payload(struct nlmsghdr *nlh, struct nftnl_set *s)
> mnl_attr_nest_end(nlh, nest);
> }
>
> +static void
> +nftnl_set_nlmsg_build_subkey_payload(struct nlmsghdr *nlh, struct nftnl_set *s)
> +{
> + struct nlattr *nest;
> + uint32_t v;
> + uint8_t *l;
> +
> + nest = mnl_attr_nest_start(nlh, NFTA_SET_SUBKEY);
> + for (l = s->subkey_len; l - s->subkey_len < NFT_REG32_COUNT; l++) {
While I like pointer arithmetics, too, I don't think it's much use here.
Using good old index variable even allows to integrate the zero value
check:
| for (i = 0; i < NFT_REG32_COUNT && s->subkey_len[i]; i++)
> + if (!*l)
> + break;
> + v = *l;
> + mnl_attr_put_u32(nlh, NFTA_SET_SUBKEY_LEN, htonl(v));
I guess you're copying the value here because how htonl() is declared,
but may it change the input value non-temporarily? I mean, libnftnl is
in control over the array so from my point of view it should be OK to
directly pass it to htonl().
Cheers, Phil
